Wikipedia:Peer review/Jennifer Lopez filmography/archive1

Jennifer Lopez filmography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have listed this article for a peer review because I am planning on taking it to FL and would like some input on it beforehand.

Thank you, — Status {^talk_contribs 00:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swifty Comments

I'd suggest finding some more sources for the lead. And it looks like it might need an expansion. It just seems too short to me. If she was nominated or won any awards for any of her roles that maybe worth posting in there. But I really think it looks okay for the most part. Swifty*^talk 03:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are really what this article is for. I think maybe some box office info (not like exact numbers, but whether it was a success or not) should be included in it somehow as well. Don't wanna make the lead too long though; I'm sure that won't fly well with FL. ;) — Status {^talk_contribs 03:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had planned on putting box office numbers in the tables. What do you guys think? Or is that too much? I want it to be detailed as possible. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely looks a lot better bud. The only thing I can say is that be sure everything has a source. :) Swifty*^talk _contribs 16:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Comments

The lead could be expanded, as Swifty said.
Avoid the use of vague terms such as "several".
You are inconcsisent with your use of commas. Example: "She gained her first high-profile job as a fly girl dancer on the television comedy program, In Living Color in 1991." Reword to "Her first high-profile job was in 1991, as a fly girl dancer on the television comedy program In Living Color." Commas do not directly precede names of works, films, etc.
FN 1: ISSN?
Your italicization for web publications is not all that consistent. AllRovi is not italics but MTV News and Box Office Mojo are? I suggest no italicization for web-exclusive publications. No italics for Country Music Television either.
I suggest {{cite news}} for all newspapers.
Who are the creators of DanceLife and Como ama una mujer?

—WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have some specific suggestions on what should be added to the lead? I'm very unsure about what to do with it. The reference issues seem to all have been corrected, although, a few may still stand. (I'm still getting used to doing it myself; I seriously didn't know how to do refs very well before JLO's discography FL.) As for the missing creators, I couldn't find that information anywhere. — Status {^talk_contribs 20:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe elaborate on the reception of her film work? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Legolas – The body of the article is orgasmic, but the lead is where it fails. As the other two reviewers said, expand on the critical reception, especially for Selena and her string of hits like A Wedding Planner, The Cell, Maid in Manhattan etc. At present you are just touching the films with the reader wondering whether they were hit or flop etc etc. Some other things are pointed out by Wikipedian Penguin, like the italicization thing, but you will take care of it (lol, I thought so after J.Lo discography). All in all, a hard work I can see. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead. I mostly just used Rotten Tomatoes as a source the reviews, hope that's fine. (Why wouldn't it be, it complies a bunch of reviews, LOL). Could I have some grammical suggestions now? Some words seem a bit too overused. — Status {^talk_contribs 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! I think I am happy with it now. Not sure what others think. :) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JohnFromPinckney: My first peer review. Hope it doesn't hurt.

The page starts with "Jennifer Lopez ... is an American actress, etc.," and lists recording artist last, although that's how I think of her primarily. I'm not saying you have to change the order, just that it's a bit surprising when I read that. Then, the first paragraph goes on to say she was in several roles, of which many received negative reviews. By the end of that first graph, I'm wondering, "did the critics hate just the shows/movies (although she was great), or was she the reason for the bad reviews?" It's a wonder she's the highest-paid Latina actor, with such a pathetic-sounding start (and then she made Gigli and Jersey Girl).
As I think about the above, I come to the idea (which I see the other reviewers have already had) that the lead could be more about discussion of her success in TV/films, and how that weighs against her success in music. This lead does a lot of what I think is overdone in music discographies: she did this, then she did that, then she did that one and won an award, then did that and didn't, then... etc. The list of works is below; tell me about what it means. Give me some context. I'd like to see discogs emulate The Beatles discography more. The leads of Marlene Dietrich filmography, Michael Jackson videography, Dolores del Río filmography seem to go in a direction I like. The lead for Cher filmography is way too long to me (suffers from discographius recentium). Better for length and focus is Gene Kelly filmography (like Jackson's article, promoted to FL in 2009 in slightly different version).
Thinking about WP:WIAFL 3(a): Maybe more discussion of international impact? Is she big only in the US?
No period in the (non-sentence) caption.
If you keep their mention in the lead, you could refer to "its spin-off, Hotel Malibu " following Second Chances.
In "she became a judge of the reality television singing competition American Idol", I'd prefer "a judge on"; as otherwise it sounds like she's a critic analysing the show.
We should de-cap the col headings down to U.S. box office, as in Peak chart positions on discogs (WP:TABLE).
I think I'm not happy with the wording of some of the table captions, but I'm not sure what to recommend that I'd like better. "Television roles as an actress" sounds a bit wrong to me, as does "Television works as a crew member". Maybe the word "credits" in place of "roles" and "works"? Not sure here.
I haven't studied the refs too much, but Refs 64 and 71 (possibly others) use "The New York Times (The New York Times Company)" as work & publisher, which is redundant and, I believe, advised against somewhere in the {{cite}} docs. I'd probably complain (and bother to look it up myself) at an FLC.

I hope these comments are of use to you. Again, it's my first PR, so forgive me if I've criticized at the wrong level of detail or scope. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The order is only like that because I decided just to do ABC. What do you suggest then? I add the highest paid actor part to the end? I suppose I could try to add some more other details, but I mean, if I added information about her music career, the lead would be hella wrong. And in reverse, wouldn't I have to add the same to her discography? I didn't really mention US or world only in the lead; so I'm going to assume you are referring to the table. I could add the world box office, as well as the US, and have it like sales in discographies? The only reason I picked US only is because a lot of earlier films didn't have worldwide sales noted. The rest of the issues I will address after I get back from school. — Status {^talk_contribs 12:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's fine. Detail is fine. :) I opened this because I don't want to have as many issues as I did with her discography, you see. ;) — Status {^talk_contribs 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The order's fine, really; I hadn't realized (or remembered) that she started as an actor. But here are a few quibbles on phrasing of the text:

The 2nd sentence has "... spanning across a 25 year old career." We can span, or we can stretch across, but we don't need to span across. Also, the "old" is unneeded. Better: "... spanning a 25-year career."
In "...is often dubbed by critics as her breakout role", I would replace "dubbed" with "seen" or "cited". I would dub this a criticism of the wording, but I wouldn't dub it as a criticism, if you get what I mean.
"The film was met with positive reviews" probably doesn't need the "was". An alternative might be "The film was met by positive reviews" (although I prefer the former).
I just (in the last two days) saw some guidance somewhere (WP:Albums?) that we should avoid the term "sophomore album" (also used here). The reason is that the term sophomore is not widely used outside the US (apparently). Try replacing with "second album".
That "considered one of the worst films of all time" is begging for a source.
Spell-check on "mixed reveiws", please.
(Scraping the barrel now): I am not sure, but I wonder if somewhere in the Manual of Style (or maybe Wikiproject Film?) there's not something about sorting titles so that the "The" and "A" at the begging is ignored. The Cell would sort under "C" then, not "T". I have no idea if this is actual WP guidance, or even prefereable, and I have no idea if you want to fool with that for this review.

I like the lede's scope and the table & section headings more than I did earlier. The sorting looks good. At FLC I'd strike my earlier, resolved whinings but here I guess I leave them. I hope this helps. Good work and good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

For her role as "Selena Quintanilla", wouldn't it be more suitable to just simply say "Selena"? According to all of these sources, they only say "the role as Selena" and not "the role as Selena Quintanilla" because she was only known simply as "Selena". Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Selena fanatic; Lopez became the first Hispanic actress to be paid US $1 million for her role as Selena. You can pick any of these sources. That's all for me :-) Good luck with the nomination. Happy holidays, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for the comments. I will finally get to the rest of the issues tomorrow. I have been incredibly busy with school recently, and have had no real time to invest into this in the past few weeks. — Status {^talk_contribs 04:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the refs should be placed right next to the film titles as I don't really see the need for a separate column. Do you agree? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had it like that, but it looked messy, and I was advised to make it into a separate column. — Status {^talk_contribs 01:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. :) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. The issues remaining have been resolved. About the "The" and "A" issue; I believe there's something on that. Lemme look into it... — Status {^talk_contribs 03:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, and done. :) — Status {^talk_contribs 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks, gracias. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is just superb work! Congrats, this already looks FL quality. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange thing is, it took him less than a matter of days. I wish I had his motivation. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you guys so much! I'm gonna close this now. I would really appreciate it if you guys would also take part in the FL. :) — Status {^talk_contribs 22:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]