Talk:Toni Collette/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LM150 (talk · contribs) 13:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article! Great work on it so far. LM150 13:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'll come back to the lede later
"She appeared on SBS TV's Who Do You Think You Are? in August 2015 for "Season 7 Episode 2: Toni Collette," to find out more about her grandparents." - do we need to put this here, as it's a minor TV appearance and has nothing to do with her early life? (I know it gives context about the next sentence but perhaps keep it subtle, eg. Collette later learned on an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? that.."
"Muriel's Wedding (September 1994)" - is the month here necessary?
"The film was a critical and commercial success, grossing US$57.5 million on a budget of US$9 million." - source needed
"Less well received was her next film, 8½ Women (1999)" - odd phrasing, perhaps "Her next film, 8½ Women (1999), was not as well received."
Shaft film: "and grossed US$107.2 million on a budget of US$46 million." - source needed
"Whereas John Patterson of The Guardian" - swap 'Whereas' with 'However'
Japanese Story film: "It was screened at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival." - source needed
"Her two releases of 2004 - The Last Shot and Connie and Carla – were rated" - could we use commas instead of dashes?
"the film received generally positive reviews from critics, and became a moderate independent success, earning a total of US$82.2 million worldwide" - source needed about positive reviews
Friday Night film: "and was a commercial success grossing US$41 million on a US$30 million budget." - source needed
"The series aired for fifteen episodes and, due to a combination of low ratings and a closed narrative, did not return for a second season." - source needed
Miss You Already film: "It premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival to generally positive reviews; more widely, Metacritic rated it at 59% indicating, "mixed or average reviews." - source needed
"crime thriller Imperium" - the wikilink is to the wrong article
"Partly a satire about the art world, it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival to polarising reactions." - source needed or remove this
"It premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and was a commercial success, grossing US$300.1 million." - source needed or remove this
"For her performance, she received nominations for a Golden Globe Award and a Primetime Emmy Award, and won the Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Supporting Actress in a Movie/Miniseries." - source needed
The two paragraphs in "Awards and nominations" are unsourced.

Firstly, thanks for starting the review. Secondly, although not the nominator I have extensively edited the article after running the Peer Review on it. I've tackled some of the issues you've identified and will now look for sources for those that haven't been covered.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got refs for most of the gross/budget figures and other refs needed above. Muriel's Wedding figures were severely cut back due to the source I found.

I think the last two dot points were referenced when her full list of Awards and nominations was incorporated in this article. I'll have a look there later.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added those awards & noms refs in that sectn.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, a few more notes/comments for you:

Artistry section - 3rd paragraph. Who is Rilla Kingston, is she a film critic? Looking at the source, it looks like a college academic journal. I don't have a major problem with it, but just thought this analysis should come from a famous/professional critic (eg. Roger Ebert). If Kingston's student essay is the best we've got - then we can leave it.

ARAIK Kingston was an undergrad. Ebert (and other professional critics) tend to do reviews per film/TV show and rarely tackle a career overview.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)20:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galafassi "had a devastating motorbike accident" - don't use a quote here, just write "Galafassi had a motorbike accident" or something similar
Lede section - 1st paragraph. The phrase "for which she" is used 4 times. Could we please reduce it? For instance, try writing "which earned her a Golden Globe Award nomination"
Images and licences are fine
No plagiarism detected with copyvio detector
Sources are fine. Is it possible to replace 204, the YouTube video?
I'm not going to let this affect the article obtaining a GA - but in future, you may want to reduce the amount of quotes by paraphrasing them, as it will help with flow and readability (eg. the second paragraph under 2012-2017 has 8 quotes which I think is unnecessary). LM150 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at the rest of these. Hopefully its better.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've made a few copyedits for clarity but I'm happy to pass this now. Thank you and MuchAdoA for bringing this to GA. LM150 21:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pleasantly run GAN.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]