Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Julianne Moore/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Julianne Moore edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've given this article a complete overhaul, and it would be great if someone could read through it and provide feedback. I suppose my goal for the article is FAC, so if the review could be made with those high criteria in mind, that would be ideal. I've tried to make it an interesting read, not just IMDb in prose form, and hope you'll enjoy. Thanks! --Lobo (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cassianto

I think the article is in fantastic shape and is certainly not far off FA worthy. My comments below are extra-critical, and may seem obvious, but I have tried to assume absolute ignorance on modern day Hollywood, so we garner the best out of the article's current form. Please treat the below as minor observations only and feel free to discuss any you may not agree on.

Lead Section

  • From 1985 to 1988, she was a regular on the soap opera As the World Turns... Would one not appear in a soap opera as opposed to on a soap opera?

Early life

  • "The family lived in multiple locations, including Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Panama, Nebraska, Alaska, New York, and Virginia..." -- links to all except New York for those who are not sure of their geographical location from one another. By doing this, it would help to illustrate just how far the Moores travelled during Julianne's early life.
    • Done, but I've also linked NY for consistency. I think it would look a bit weird if it was the only one without a link. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't see it from that point of view. Agreed, but beware, others may consider New York to be overlinking somewhat. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moving regularly made her an insecure child..." -- Redundant use of "regularly". If not, did some moves make her insecure and others didn't? Also, if we decide to keep this, we might need some punctuation so as to establish if it was "Moving regularly that made her insecure" or "Moving made her regularly insecure."
    • It's meant to have the former meaning (and agreed that it would be horrible English if it was the latter!) Tweaked to "The frequent relocating made her an insecure child...", how's that? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early roles

  • "The intensive work provided an important learning experience for the actress, who looks back on the job fondly." -- Not sure about this. Do we need to be reminded that she is an actress?
    • This was a result of me trying to avoid having "Moore" used so much, heh, but changed. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who looks back on the job fondly"; for some reason I am expecting a quote after this.
    • The source summarises the fact the she looks back fondly without a direct quote, but I added what she says about gaining confidence. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year 1990 also saw Moore's cinematic debut," --Suggest-- "The same year, Moore made her cinematic debut"
    • Done (although, is it definitely clear enough, seeing at it is just mentioned that "the group spent four years..."? That's why I initially wrote it as I did, to take the reader back to 1990). --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see, to be honest I missed that hence my comment. I think the briefness of "the group spent four years", still leaves the reader thinking of 1990 (or at least it did me). Others, may think different (or if you prefer you could change it back, I won't object). -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but increased her visibility" -- Does visibility mean popularity? Would visibility be the right word to use?
    • I don't think it would be accurate to say it increased her popularity. I'm trying to say that far more people saw her work and became aware of her. I can see how "visibility" is a strange word choice though, can you think of anything that would work better? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think visibility is the wrong word. How about..."Her next film role did not come until 1992, but with it came an increase in audience recognition"? or "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but increased her recognition among audiences" ? or "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but brought her to wider attention among her audiences"?
        • I've gone with "but introduced her to a wide audience." --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to prominence

  • "Her following film, Nine Months (1995), was crucial in establishing her as a leading lady in Hollywood." -- I would use actress rather than lady. Leading lady would work when describing her relationship with a particular actor or director.
    • I think it is used pretty standardly to mean "an actress who plays leading roles". The problem with writing "leading actress" is that it could suggest she was one of the main, most popular Hollywood actresses, which wouldn't be accurate at this point. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The romantic comedy, directed by Chris Columbus and co-starring Hugh Grant, was poorly reviewed but a box office success. It remains one of her highest grossing films." -- I'm not a fan of short stubby sentences. Could we combine the two?--suggest--"The romantic comedy, directed by Chris Columbus and co-starring Hugh Grant, was poorly reviewed but a box office success and remains one of her highest grossing films".
  • "...the sequel to his 1993 blockbuster Jurassic Park." -- Do we need to be reminded of this?
    • I feel like we should always write as if the reader knows absolutely nothing about the subject, so I think this is appropriate. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes you're right to say this, however the sequel has "Jurassic Park" within the title. I don't think any confusion would come of this (I would bet my mortgage on most hearing of Jurrassic Park). Leave for now, lets see what others think. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
International recognition
  • "In between these two releases, Moore was also seen in A Map of the World, supporting Sigourney Weaver." -- End of paragraphs should finish with a cite.
    • Will do this tomorrow. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've ref'd this to IMDb. I know it is blacklisted on here, but I genuinely think its the best source in the world for filmographies! I will always argue that it is a great source to use for certain information. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that its filmography is excellent, however I'm sure you know that it is user generated and thus will be deemed unreliable for the bods at FAC. May I suggest this or this as more reliable alternatives. -- CassiantoTalk 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to find her filmography on the BFI site before but couldn't find it! Thanks, I've used that for the Map of the World sentence. I'm not sure what to do about the last sentence of para 1, early roles, because BFI and NYT both give different years for the three TV films than IMDb does. I personally think IMDb is more likely to be accurate. I guess I'll just leave it ref'd to IMDb for now, and argue for its inclusion at FAC, but if they really want it changed then I can just alter the ref and dates at that point. --Lobo (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool. I did look on BFI and AFI but nothing!
  • "Hannibal was another blockbuster release for Moore..." -- as far as I can see, this is not the first mention of "blockbuster" and so should not be linked. However, this would depend on how we resolve the next door but one up comment in this review as "blockbuster" is mentioned there for the first time.
    • Good catch, linked it at first mention instead. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


2003–2009

  • The first image may need staggering to the other side, but I have never really understood this rule, so I won't insist on it.
    • Since she is "facing" to the right, I think the image needs to be on the left. I could move it down a paragraph? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think this would then interfere with the next image. Like I say, I don't see the issue with this rule so I won't lose sleep over it. I had to mention it to be MOS compliant. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year following Moore's success in Far From Heaven and The Hours did not see any new releases from the actress. She returned to cinema screens in 2004." -- Two things; firstly, I had an unnecessary pause when I had to scroll back up to remind myself when the two films you mention were made. I think mentioning the year wouldn't hurt here. Secondly, I feel the two sentances could be combined. --suggest-- "Moore did not see any new releases in 2003, instead returning the following year in **film**".
    • Forgot to mark this as done yesterday. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laws of Attraction pitted her opposite Pierce Brosnan in a courtroom-based romantic comedy, which was also panned by critics." -- presuming of course that Marie and Bruce was also panned by critics. Or; "There was no success in her first two ventures of the year: The first, Marie and Bruce, a dark comedy co-starring Matthew Broderick, failed to find an audience; this was followed by Laws of Attraction, which pitted her opposite Pierce Brosnan in a courtroom-based romantic comedy, but was also panned by critics."
    • From what I gather, Marie and Bruce didn't even get a proper release, but I can't find a reliable source that says this outright. But because it wasn't released, critics didn't even get a chance to slate it. So I can't write that Laws "also" received bad reviews. Anyway, I've had a go at reworking this bit. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ok. Yes I suspected this was the case. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ben Brantley of The New York Times was unenthusiastic about the production, and described Moore as miscast." -- Did Brantley actually say she was miscast? If so, suggest a quote?
    • Yes, he says it directly. He goes into a fairly elaborate explanation for why, I don't think there is a succinct quote that would be appropriate...As a reader though, did you feel like you needed an explanation for why? I could add a summary. But then, his view on Moore is actually given in the "Roles and reception" section, so we may get repetition... --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks. I think giving a similar summary here would be repetitive (or the latter summary would be repetitive) depends how you look at it. If the explanation is that elaborate, then maybe we could afford a very brief extension on why he though she was miscast, without actually repeating what is stated in the later section. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added something to this, but I don't feel like it's great. Could you take a look? If you think you could improve it, please do. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore later confessed that she found Broadway performing difficult ..." -- --suggest-- "Moore later confessed that she found performing on Broadway difficult ..."

2010s

  • "Moore also returned to As the World Turns, making a cameo appearance as Frannie Hughes when the show was cancelled in 2010." -- This reads like she accepted and played the role when she knew of the shows cancellation. I suspect its not so suggest..."Moore also returned to As the World Turns, making a cameo appearance as Frannie Hughes, but the show was cancelled shortly after in 2010."
    • Actually, that is exactly what happened. She decided to return to the show when it was cancelled as a tribute. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...eventually garnering an Oscar nomination for Best Picture." -- when?
    • I'm worried that adding .."at the following year's Academy Awards", or something, would sound redundant? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you are right. I read it again and it would be redundant. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore received her sixth Golden Globe Award nomination and a second BAFTA nomination for Best Actress." -- For The Kids Are Alright presumably?
  • "For the first time in her career, Moore received a Golden Globe, a Primetime Emmy, and a SAG Award." -- Do you mean this was the first time she received all three at once or individually? May need clarifying slightly.
    • Yeah it was the first time she received any of these awards. I'm aware that it is a bit ambiguous but can't think of a solution - any ideas? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have deliberated for over half an hour on this, but can see no alternative. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ha, well thanks for trying! --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore has five upcoming projects; The English Teacher, which she stars in with Greg Kinnear, is set for a spring 2013 release. The fantasy-adventure film The Seventh Son is also set for an October release " -- I wouldn't predict this just yet. This could be liable to change as is so often the case.
    • Hmm, even if it is sourced and made clear that it isn't definite? (The English Teacher actually does have a definite date now, fixed that). I will make sure they're all kept up to date. I think it's interesting for readers to know her upcoming projects, and think it would be a shame to remove them (and I'm pretty sure users would constantly come along and add them anyway!) --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I foresee no problems with it if you keep up to date with these. I agree it is important for upcoming projects to be listed, its just the vague dates I have a problem with e.g; April 2013, October 2013...etc. Saying 2013 is ok, but narrowing it down further to the month without a reliable source, would be borderline crystal. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources used are reliable, (Empire (magazine) actually uses The Hollywood Reporter for its film news) so I feel like it's okay to give these currently projected release dates. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and roles

  • "She appears in both low-budget independent films and large-scale Hollywood productions,[29] which Moore enjoys for the variety." --suggest-- She enjoys the variety of appearing in both low-budget independent films and large-scale Hollywood productions.

Writing *Do we have any critical comments of Freckleface Strawberry the Musical, or how well it did on stage and at the box-office?

    • I'll look into this tomorrow. --Lobo (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay I added a review, and found some other useful info as well. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • "She is a pro-choice activist, and sits on the board of advocates for Planned Parenthood."[22][12] -- Watch for the ref order.

Selected filmography

  • I'm not a great fan of bulleted lists, especially when we have already discussed the majority of them in the narrative, so I see this section as a bit redundant. See current FA's, picked at random and of a similar vein, that do not use bulleted lists: Maggie Gyllenhaal; Kirsten Dunst; Angelina Jolie; Reese Witherspoon; Diane Keaton; Judy Garland etc...
    • See, I actually really like this method. Her full filmography table is huge, and many of the roles were small/forgotten, so I'd prefer not to have the whole thing. But I think it would be a shame to leave it completely blank. The reality is that many readers won't bother with the main text, and I think one of the main things people go to actor pages for is to be told their most notable roles. This quickly points people to her main films. To be honest, I'd like to see all actor pages have this system! I really think it's useful. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't be convinced on this one I'm afraid. I understand that this is a personal preference (wouldn't it be a boring place if we all agreed on the same things). In terms of keeping it or removing it, my advice would be to leave it for now and see what future reviewers think at FAC. Also, the section also appears to be completely unreferenced, a sure thing to be mentioned at GAC and more so at FAC. The films wont need to be referenced singularly unless you want to (I would), so one ref for all should suffice. If you want to use one reference for all, you would need to format it like this with a note out of the table at the bottom. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There currently is a note at the bottom, explaining the basis for the selection with two references. I think the only alternative to removing the list (since the full filmography is so big) would be a blank section, and I can't really see how that is preferable. On music articles, it's pretty standard to have a discography section that links to a main discography article and then lists the artist's albums with simple bullet points. This is kind of like the "actor" version of that, in my eyes. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool, I made an adjustment or two to this. As a possible alternative to the uglyness of a bulleted list, could I tempt you with this?. If this doesn't appeal don't worry about saying so I won't be offended. -- CassiantoTalk 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay that's a fair compromise, I've added the table (with some tweaks to the genres). --Lobo (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

  • I'm not a genius with tables, but the key is to make sure they sort correctly. SchroCat is the best to ask. Much to his annoyance, I always plead ignorance on the technical stuff when we co-nom on lists :-)
    • I've checked it, and I'm pretty sure it sorts nicely. But then I guess I don't know the highest standard of sortability! I will try and get someone to check it out. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can recommend RexxS who is a genius on wiki technical stuff such as tables. He is extremely helpful, friendly and accomodating. Also, SchroCat knows his stuff. Looking at the table in the edit screen, it doesn't quite look right. Cue shameless plug *ahem*... Check this format and compare would be my best advice. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tweaked the sort on the titles, as "The", "And", "A" and "An" are supposed to be non-sortable. This should be OK for an FA, although if you get someone hot on accessibility reviewing they will pull you up on it. Have a look at the Sellers one above, for accessibility you're supposed to flag up what the columns are and where each row begins. This helps the accessibility software "explain" tables. FLs are very hot on it - as they should be - but FAs are more interested in the article overall and the prose, rather than tables, so sometimes they slip through. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for doing that. I pretty sure the standard you've left it at would (or should) be fine for FAC - the technical stuff is obviously far more important for FLs. --Lobo (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the references later, but will be checking for formatting issues (if any) only. -- CassiantoTalk .

Thank you so much for the review, it was a big help, and I'm delighted that you were impressed with the page. Thanks again for your time, it really is appreciated. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure. I will complete the final strikes when your done. Ping me when your on top of it :-) -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a spin through this shortly, but RL is getting in the way at the moment, so it won't be until the mid or end of next week, if you can wait that long. If others come in before that, then feel free to close without my comments and I'll definately chip in at FAC too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely wait, no rush at all. If you're able to make some comments that would be great, thanks! --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. A very quick skim shows it to be in pretty good shape as it is, but I haven't really read it properly yet. The only thing that sticks out is that in the lead (and at least one other place) you refer to Far From Heaven: this should be Far from Heaven with a lower case f. I've printed a copy off and I'll work through it while I'm away. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all the mentions to "Far from Heaven" (apart from the titles of references which don't use this format - is that okay?) --Lobo (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is, as far as I'm concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Overall a very nicely written and well-balanced article which gives the reader a very good overview of Moore, both professionally and privately. As far as Wiki ratings, this is very close to an FA and I'd be happy to support it when it gets there, given one or two minor tweaks. Nothing I say here is binding, but FA reviews may think differently and hold back a support based on any of the below:

General

  • There are a couple of swaps between theater and theatre. I'm sure you're on top of the differing uses, but it's worth a quick look over to make sure you're using the right variant in the right place.
    • Caught one instance of "theater", thanks. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a nbsp before the ellipses, as this ensures any line breaks will happen in the right place (see WP:ELLIPSES)
  • You will need to make sure you are consistent with ~ise and ~ize: I saw one organisation in there (which gladdened my heart as an Englishman, but will make the Americans wince!)
    • Ha, fixed that "organisation" slip. Everything else seems sufficiently Americanized.--Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "after studying theatre". Is this how the colonials really mangle English phrase this? It may well be, in which case that's fine.
    • Since her degree was called "Theatre" I think this is okay? I'm absolutely fine with you tweaking it though; please do if you really dislike the phrasing. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely balanced summary of the rest of the article otherwise.

Early life

  • "The frequent relocating made her an insecure child,[2] and she struggled to establish friendships,[5] but Moore has remarked": I'd probably tweak slightly to move Moore to earlier in the sentence, rather than "her", and possibly split the sentence: "The frequent relocating made Moore an insecure child,[2] and she struggled to establish friendships.[5] She later remarked that…" Not sure which is best. Cass, do you have a view on this too?
    • I think I mention this above. I wasn't sure if it was the moving regularly that made her insecure" or "Moving made her regularly insecure. Lobo points out above that she became insecure by the frequent moving as opposed to the regularity of her insecure feelings. I concur with SchroCat that "The frequent relocating made Moore an insecure child, and she struggled to establish friendships. She later remarked that…" would be better. -- CassiantoTalk 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to split the sentence into two (and have), but since "Moore" is used right near the end of the previous sentence, I don't think it's a good idea to replace the "her" at this point. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition

  • I'm not sure about the title here. A number of her earlier films were "international" (Nine Months, with Grant, was a hit in the UK, as was Lost World. Perhaps "Increasing recognition"?
    • The title was selected because at this stage she starts getting awards and nominations around the world (BAFTA, Venice, Berlin). I can see your point though; she was already famous internationally. I've changed it to "Widespread recognition" for now, but may change it again if I think of something better. This period is when she gets a bunch of awards and nominations, including all her Oscar noms (which is why I wanted it all to be one section, despite the length). I'd say it's when she really gets her reputation as one of the finest working actresses, as well. It would be good if the section heading indicates that. Any ideas? --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was not a hit at the time of release but has since become a cult classic.[42]": I don't know why, but it just seems a little wrong. Perhaps "but subsequently became a cult classic" may read better?
  • "Moore received her second Academy Award nomination for the role, her first for Best Actress, as well as nominations at the British Academy". The sub-clause doesn't sit well there (for me, at least, but I've read it too many times now!) maybe dashes would be better? "nomination for the role—her first for Best Actress—as well…"?

2003-2009

  • The title should probably be "2003-09", in line with the MOS.
    • It does look like this is in the MOS, although I'm sure I've seen many articles that give the full year for the end range! Anyway, changed. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010s

  • "Tim Robey of The Telegraph": is there a reason you've piped The Daily Telegraph to remove "Daily"?
    • Well the article itself just says "The Telegraph", since the website covers both the Daily and Sunday papers, but our WP pages are separate. It's a tricky one. I could pipelink it to Telegraph Media Group instead? --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I've only taken a skim through these, as I find reading them en masse just too daunting for my poor brain to cope with, but the the following suggested themselves.

  • Ditto the above comment about The Daily Telegraph
  • ImdB. I know Cass has already mentioned this, and I know someone is bound to pick this up at FA. Although it does have its uses, it does have flaws and if you can find an alternative source then it would be much better.
    • I guess I'm being a rebel, haha, and trying to change the attitude that IMDb is a completely no-go area. I would never use it as a reference for biographical details, but for filmographies and film awards it is the best resource in the world. I really can't see why it isn't allowed for these facts—to be honest, I feel like it is people just blindly following the MOS. But nothing in history ever would have changed if people always did what they were told! ;-) I know the issue will be raised at FAC, and I guess I will change any of the refs I can, but when—for instance—I want to reference all the nominations she received for a role, it is so much easier to give the one ref to the IMDb page rather than link to each individual organisation. The reader can verify it straight away. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 77 and 92 will have to be re-done. Variety shifted a number of pages around recently and neither of those links now work. Somewhat brilliantly the Variety search page still shows the links to the old pages, rather than the new location...
    • Yep, I'm aware of these dead links. It's very annoying. They're both really useful reviews, so I'm kind of hanging on until 1) Variety puts them up again (the links currently say they are re-adding reviews in "the coming weeks"), or until they appear on the WaybackMachine, since they say: "When a site is crawled, there is usually at least a 6-month lag, and sometimes as much as a 24-month lag, between the date that web pages are crawled and when they appear in the Wayback Machine." Who knows, they could appear on there at any day. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a very, very good article. If you don't agree with anything I've said here, just ignore it (or tell me which piece of the MOS I've misread!) What is more important is not that things necessarily get changed, but that you put the text though a logical process and decide you were right in the first place: at least the best version will out in the end! I'll keep an eye on this to answer any questions you may have, but please ping me when you go to FAC and I'll certainly chip in there too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reading through it and for the compliments. As I said to Cass, I really do appreciate it. There definitely aren't any other bits that read a bit awkwardly, or lack flow? I've been worried that it's a bit stilted at times, but it's tricky with an article like this. I'll try my luck at FAC once I've had a run-through of the sources and boring things like that (and once, hopefully, those Variety reviews are available again). Thanks so much for your time and encouragement, --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Julianne_Moore/archive1&oldid=1144455565"