Talk:Melissa Rosenberg/GA1

GA Review

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

Will start soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, commenting on the refs. Why is the first twilightlexiconblog.com ref a reliable source? Looks like you may not need it anyways. Interviews are OK on fan sites, though.

I agree it doesn't look too reliable but it does cite its own sources. Make of it what you will. It supports her birthday (August 28), which doesn't appear in any other sources accessible to me. —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bennington College ref's link isn't working for me. Not sure why.

The page was moved to a different URL; I've fixed the link.

Prose. "she enjoyed presenting plays, recruiting other neighborhood children" would an "and" be better than a comma? up to you

Done. —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"She originally aspired to become a dancer or choreographer" I think she wanted to be both, not one or the other. The ref uses "dancer/choreographer" Also, that sentence sounds funny. You can study dancing and choreography, but not dancer and choreographer.

Changed to "She originally aspired to work in dancing and choreography". —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Later, she was also offered to write the sequel film" sounds funny. Maybe "Later, she was also offered the job of writing the sequel"

Done. —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you're linking 2006 dance film and February 2008 ceremony. I'll have to try that.

"forbidden love next to Romeo and Juliet" should it be "forbidden love after Romeo and Juliet" or "forbidden love along with Romeo and Juliet"?

Changed to "alongside". —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"set up whilst on strike" is "whilst" better than "while"? Up to you.

Done. —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do use "At our wedding, half the attendees were shrinks, the other half, their clients," twice?

That was a mistake, sorry; fixed. —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little article. Good work. Overall, this article is well written, verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and has appropriate images. Address my above comments, and I'll pass it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your concerns. —97198 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass it. The only sketchy thing (as far as GA is concerned) is that twilightlexiconblog.com ref for her birthdate. I guess you're saying that the Women Screenwriters Today: Their Lives and Words ref only gives her birth year, but not day and month? If that's the case, and you take out the day and month, someone might add it, along with a source. At least, if it's on your watchlist, you could see people try and mabye one of them will find a reliable source. On the other hand, I imagine it's accurate. Do as you will. Overall, very nice work and a pleasure to review. Also, not that I want to be a TV writer, but one more example that you better go to USC if you don't have connections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the birthdate (and ref). Thanks again. —97198 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]