Talk:Jennifer Kent

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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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 very clearly written by someone who is (understandably!) a fan, but it really shouldn't be that clear (Wikipedia:point of view). It occasionally comes off as a bit of a paean, rather than a neutral article. There's a bit of undue weight, some "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.

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:RS), the film was atypical for the horror genre..." if such claims can be sourced (this may trigger 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)

Addendum: The symbolism subsection of the film's own page is a pretty solid stylistic example that's about as relevant as it gets. Probably worth noting that, even on the page for the whole film, fewer lines are given to the film than here (that's where it looks like WP:UNDUE comes in) FangsFirst (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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)