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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Raoul.duke. Peer reviewers: JIAJIAHAOHAO.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
In general,this is a very well written article. All sections are clear and cohesive with a good structure. The article has a strong information and background of Julia Kwan,such as her family,her education and her each works.And there are lots of reliable that support for your page.But you can make a list of Awards and Nominations section,it will be clearly.And it will be better to add an infobox with Julia Kwan’s picture. If Julia Kwan has a Chinese name,you can write it down in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIAJIAHAOHAO ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a good article, but I have a few points. Saying Kwan brought a "keen sense" does not seem like a provable fact, but rather an opinion. As well, the information of her astrological sign is misplaced. It would be better suited at the very end of her Biography section, or added as a note after the quote about the movie Eve and the Fire Horse being autobiographical, where it would not feel out of place. Finally, including the name of the filmmaker she won a joint award with is good, but adding the film he won the award for is less relevant on a page about Julia Kwan. 50Fetch ( talk) 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this article and found it concise and informative. However, I would note that the repetitive language is somewhat distracting, particularly the usage of the subject's name in the biography section. Reworking this section to flow more naturally could improve the reading experience. Additionally, organizing the Career section chronologically would make the article stronger. However, overall a good read. MrahGR ( talk) 15:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This article doesn't have an infobox.
I recently encountered a handful of contributors who very aggressively claimed that placing an infobox on a BLP article required talk page consensus. If no one responds, after a reasonable period of time, I will place one here. Geo Swan ( talk) 11:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Infoboxes such as the one proposed here seem to pander to the lowest concentration span going. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Infoboxes should only be used occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept infoboxes everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. Cassianto Talk 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Raoul.duke. Peer reviewers: JIAJIAHAOHAO.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
In general,this is a very well written article. All sections are clear and cohesive with a good structure. The article has a strong information and background of Julia Kwan,such as her family,her education and her each works.And there are lots of reliable that support for your page.But you can make a list of Awards and Nominations section,it will be clearly.And it will be better to add an infobox with Julia Kwan’s picture. If Julia Kwan has a Chinese name,you can write it down in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIAJIAHAOHAO ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a good article, but I have a few points. Saying Kwan brought a "keen sense" does not seem like a provable fact, but rather an opinion. As well, the information of her astrological sign is misplaced. It would be better suited at the very end of her Biography section, or added as a note after the quote about the movie Eve and the Fire Horse being autobiographical, where it would not feel out of place. Finally, including the name of the filmmaker she won a joint award with is good, but adding the film he won the award for is less relevant on a page about Julia Kwan. 50Fetch ( talk) 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this article and found it concise and informative. However, I would note that the repetitive language is somewhat distracting, particularly the usage of the subject's name in the biography section. Reworking this section to flow more naturally could improve the reading experience. Additionally, organizing the Career section chronologically would make the article stronger. However, overall a good read. MrahGR ( talk) 15:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This article doesn't have an infobox.
I recently encountered a handful of contributors who very aggressively claimed that placing an infobox on a BLP article required talk page consensus. If no one responds, after a reasonable period of time, I will place one here. Geo Swan ( talk) 11:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Infoboxes such as the one proposed here seem to pander to the lowest concentration span going. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Infoboxes should only be used occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept infoboxes everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. Cassianto Talk 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)