Talk:Jean Brooks/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 20:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a review shortly. Wizardman 20:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found on a skim today:

I'd move one of the images to the infobox, seems odd that she doesn't show up until later in the article.
The book in further reading is using used as a citation, so doesn't need to be duplicated.

I'll do a prose read-through tomorrow. Wizardman 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest of what I found:

"Universal never gave her star treatment, preferring instead to cast her in small roles and B-movies." I'd prefer a cite on that if you're going to keep it. Granted, based on that and future paragraphs it's already implied and doesn't really need saying at all.
" (Though this is known to have been her second marriage, there is no information on her first. It is rumored to have been to Erich von Stroheim.)" Same as above, if we don't know I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning unless that was a particularly strong rumor at the time (I tried checking the Manc source myself but google blocked the page it was probably on).
"It was a happy time for her while she formed amateur theater groups and worked in productions along with her husband who was a writer, at the various places they were stationed." I'd add a comma after husband, but would also want a cite here too.

Everything else looks fine. I'll put the article on hold and will pass when the above is fixed. Wizardman 22:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: I think I have addressed your points above; a few of these things I believe were possibly added to the article after I had done significant editing on it, as I don't recognize some of the prose as being mine (I nominated this article quite a long time ago now). Thanks for picking it up for review. Let me know if you have other concerns with it. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. I don't know if noting Richard Brooks' marriage a second time in the personal life section is needed, but it's a minor issue so I don't mind one way or the other. Everything else is fine so I'll pass it. Wizardman 01:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]