Talk:Jennifer Kent
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giraffegirl99. Peer reviewers: Morocoolguy, NovaSnow95.
Above undated message substituted from
Peer Review
Very insightful information presented in each section, for each section presented the contents provided were in between guidelines and not streaming too far off topic. well done on separating each information and dividing them to their proper section. though improvements can be seen when writing in her career overall. You could shed some light on other achievements she has earned instead of focusing too much on her first feature length film. Also, I can't help but notice that the tone of the information provided is guided to a certain point of view. Good work nonetheless. Morocoolguy (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- thanks for the feedback! can you elaborate on what part seems to be in a certain point of view?, I tried really hard to change the tone to sound more 'wikipedia' like.
Giraffegirl99 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's difficult to put a finger on exactly, but there are a lot of relatively extraordinary claims about how The Babadook was "atypical", generally without (or with minimal/individually-sourced) citations. Whilst I can't rely on the original research of my own experience (WP:NOR), many of these claims do not ring true to me as a long-time watcher of horror films, and feel not only incorrect, but extraordinary.
- It's difficult to put a finger on exactly, but there are a lot of relatively extraordinary claims about how The Babadook was "atypical", generally without (or with minimal/individually-sourced) citations. Whilst I can't rely on the original research of my own experience (
- It's very clearly written by someone who is (understandably!) a fan, but it really shouldn't be that clear (peacock terms", and a general sense of elevating this film uniquely in the horror genre. For instance, the claim that "Kent uses different approaches to this genre compared to classic horror film directors" is very odd on its face, considering the openly admitted (there are images from it!) influence of Robert Wiene's classic The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which is one of the iconic movies of German expressionism, which is referenced in the sentence immediately proceeding.
- It's very clearly written by someone who is (understandably!) a fan, but it really shouldn't be that clear (
- That, and similar statements, are also made as if they are objective fact, rather than opinion, and should probably be stated in a context like, "According to reviewer <reliable source>(WP:UNDUE, of course, but would at least avoid subjective expressions being stated as factual). I'm not a regular enough editor to explicitly identify the issues or re-write here, but that section, in particular, desperately needs a re-write from a more neutral perspective.FangsFirst (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)]
- That, and similar statements, are also made as if they are objective fact, rather than opinion, and should probably be stated in a context like, "According to reviewer <reliable source>(
- Addendum: The WP:UNDUE comes in) FangsFirst (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)]
- Addendum: The
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jennifer Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414115202/http://www.eicar-international.com/portraits/jennifer-kent to http://www.eicar-international.com/portraits/jennifer-kent
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404075809/http://thebabadook.com/ to http://thebabadook.com/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627074856/http://www.filmink.com.au/news/two-aussie-features-selected-for-sundance/ to http://www.filmink.com.au/news/two-aussie-features-selected-for-sundance/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
{{source check
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)