Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Jessica Lee Rose

Jessica Lee Rose

I was hoping to get this article to a GA status, or maybe even a FA status. Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Arts says "Due to the extremely large number of pending nominations in this category, nominators are advised that it may take a long time before a review begins. You may still add your nomination, but if you just want comments directed at improving the article, you might want to try Peer Review first." Therefore, I was hoping I could get some feedback before getting it officially reviewed. Additionally, myself and another user believe it is already B-class, but due to a dispute (see here), it is listed as C-class, falsely, I believe. Regardless, I was hoping to get some feedback and ideas to improve upon an article I have worked hard on and believe to be in pretty good shape as it is. Thank you very much for your time. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gbern3

All of your references are correctly formatted. You have persondata in this article which is really good to have in all wikipedia biographies. There is a good amount of categories and your photo is correctly licensed. I also love how your article is organized chronologically. It makes it so much easier to read and understand her body of work and growth as an actress.
Your lead does a good job of summarizing the article. My only qualm is the first sentence. The first sentence of all wikipedia articles should establish notability. The first sentence in this article only states that JLR is an NZ actress. Although it establishes who she is, this is not enough information to explain to a casual reader why she's important or unique from every other NZ born actress. I think you can solve this by combining the 1st and 3rd sentence of your lead like so:

Jessica Lee Rose (born April 26, 1987) is an American-born New Zealand raised actress who gained popularity after playing role of lonelygirl15, a fictional teenage homeschooled character named Bree who appeared in many video blogs (also known as a vlog) on the popular video-sharing website YouTube.

There is a separate argument for birthplace when using the {{infobox actor}} template. You should list her birthplace in this argument rather than with birthdate as it is right now. Does she have an official website? If so, list it under the "website" argument.
I think your lead could use some more internal wikilinks particularly "Webby" for people who aren't familiar with this award. You could also wikilink New York Film Academy, Mount Maunganui College, Los Angeles Times, etc.
In the Post-YouTube career section, The Crew links to a disambiguation page rather than an article.
Ref 7 doesn't state that she went New York Film Academy. NYFA isn't mentioned.
Ref 14 and ref 25 are dead links.
In the Awards and recognitions section there are some awards that have a year beside them and others that have both month and year listed. I suggest sticking to one format: either use just the year for all accolades or both month and year for all (rather than switching back and forth).
Refer to Jessica Lee Rose as either "Jessica" or "Rose", you mix them up in the article. Generally when referring back to the subject of a biographical article, you should refer to them by their last name. I don't think there's a wiki policy on this but I know that in writing this is the general rule of thumb.
The lonelygirl15 video blogs, first appearing in the summer of 2006..." Suggestion: "The lonelygirl15 video blogs, which first appeared in the summer of 2006..."

Hope these suggestions help. // Gbern3 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Zoeydahling

First of all, thanks so much! Here's my thoughts on your comments:

Thanks!
I switched the first sentence around a little bit so it addressed lonelygirl15. I wanted to keep the bulk of the lonelygirl15 part in the second paragraph so it would still stand as it's own paragraph. Do you mind taking a look at it now and letting me know what you think?
1. I think it looks great. The notability is in the first sentence and lonelygirl15 still has it's own paragraph.
It is listed separately, in the "location" as opposed to the "birthdate" - that's just how the infobox template formatted it. I added her website.
1. Whoops, I didn't realize there was an argument for "location". It isn't listed on the {{infobox actor}} template page.
Done. How's it look? Good or overkill?
1. Wikilink SyFy? I think it would be helpful to those unfamiliar with this channel. Since there isn't an article for Studio 111, I think you should remove that one.
  1. Removed Wikilink for Studio 111 and added to SyFy. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "The Crew" link.
It does say that, it's just on the second page. Do I need to make a separate reference for the second page? I thought just linking to the article would suffice?
1. I wouldn't make a separate reference per se but since both of your ref 7 cited statements are located on the second page, I would change the url in ref 7 to point directly to the second page rather than the first. The only difference between the current url you have and the new one is the last seven characters ?page=2 --> http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/unmasking-lonelygirl15/2006/09/13/1157826998165.html?page=2
  1. I didn't change the link, but I did add a page=2 argument so it's clear. That way someone can read the whole article but know the part of the article that's referenced. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. That's better. Come to think of it, I actually think this is the correct way to go about it rather than changing the link.
Switched out links to non-dead ones.
Some of the awards are given yearly and some are monthly. I thought it would be better to give as much information as possible for each award, since just listing the year for the monthly ones would not really be specific enough. What do you think?
1. I agree but some other issues have come up that I didn't see before. At first I disagreed with you because I felt that if the awards were given out on a monthly basis then I would see the need to list the month. For example, Playboy's Playmate of the Month. Awards like these need a month and year because they're given out monthly. The other awards are given out yearly (or so I thought) which is why I only saw a need for giving the year. After taking a second look I realized that most of the other awards are a one time thing like VH1's 40 Greatest Internet Superstars. They don't compile that annually so now I see your point in giving both a month and a year for the award. I have a couple new thoughts:
  1. For VH1's "40 Biggest Internet Celebrities", if she was #4 on the list why does it say "won" rather than "listed"?
    1. I did that because she "won" fourth place where in the other she was just included in an overall list. I can change it if it's clearer though? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I suppose it's already clear. You did specify fourth place in the article. Perhaps it's just me but I don't think of 4th place as winning.
  2. It says she was listed in Jane Magazine's 30 Inspirational Women Under 30 in May 2007 but your reference gives August 2008 as the date. This is more than a year's difference in time. Which one is the correct date?
    1. Good call. I fixed it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all. Do you mind doing a quick check for me?
1. You got them all.
Fixed.

Thanks again!! --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I reread the article and saw three new things I didn't see before:

These two sentences The series was an immediate hit and became the most subscribed channel on YouTube and An investigation by the Los Angeles Times would reveal the lonelygirl15 videos as a work of fiction. need references.
- Will do. UPDATE: Added refs, how's that? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better.
In the first paragraph of the Post-YouTube career section, it starts out with what she did in 2007 and then skips to 2009. In the second paragraph, it goes back to 2008. Chronological please. This sentence looks like it belongs at the end of the 3rd paragraph.
- What I was trying to do there was to group it in terms of what type of media it was. The first paragraph addresses old media, the second web series, the third her production company, the fourth her current projects. I found when I did it strictly chronologically it got a bit confusing. Do you think it would benefit greatly from switching it around though? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some thoughts: [1]After rereading I can see how you organized it in category form rather than chronological order. For this reason I think you should lose the dates particularly the April 2008 one about the Blood Cell announcement. When the series itself came out is more important than when it was announced it would be coming out. In contrast, I think it would be OK to leave the 2007 Chris Sivertson film and of course presented at the 2009 Streamy Awards because it gives context but if you're set on categorization, stick with one format throughout the section. Skipping though dates that aren't in order causes the reader to be adrift. I was criticized of this when I put up an article I wrote up for peer review in September. [2]I also advise you not to use the term "She is currently appearing". "She appeared" would be better. It's OK to have that paragraph be for the most current events but the use of time specific terms should be avoided because things don't stay current WP:MOSNUM. [3]Since your last paragraph is for her most relevant work I think you should move the October 2009 work she appeared in the SyFy television movie, Ghost Town to the fourth paragraph because this happened around the same time as Poor Paul (September 2009) and The Crew (October 2009) so it goes along with being current.
Because the White Tie Affair's song "Candle (Sick and Tired)" is an external link rather than a wikilink it should be placed in the external links section. You should definitely leave that bit of information in the Post-YouTube career section, just linkless (if that's a word) within the body of the article. //Gbern3 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]