Talk:Anne Hathaway/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Anne Hathaway (actress) talk page (Discussion page). (October 2009 - December 2009) - Please Do not edit!

Lead section during October 2009 reassessment

I would like to address my recent edits which were reverted by User:Wildhartlivie and welcome anybody else to provide input to help us reach a consensus. When my edit was reverted, the reason given was "moves away from GA criteria in reducing lead". I believe that this is a scenario in which the term "less is more" can be used: the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to present as much information as possible on a subject without making its article too long. We are accessing the internet to retrieve this information and browser errors can occur when length becomes a concern. Although this article does not pose a threat in terms of length, the goal to include only the essentials should be a top priority.

For example, the article presently features three paragraphs in the introduction. I attempted to condense as much detail into two paragraphs, especially the part pertaining to Hathaway starring in family films, which is the same idea, but separated into two paragraphs. Additionally, I do not believe that each of her co-stars deserves merit in the introduction because, in the end, this article is about Hathaway. Listing these other actors, save perhaps Julie Andrews under the sole basis that she worked with her on her first film, is distracting to the reader.

I should mention that the current revision has some untidy prose: "...the next three years, with lead..."; this comma is not grammatical. There is unprofessional language in the usage of "her early acting bestowed upon her" and "for her star turn". Also, citations do not need to appear in the introduction, which is the general summary of the article, and can instead be used in the bulk (see here). Finally, the edit summary provided by Wildhartlivie only mentions "reducing [the] lead", but I can see other reverts made (with the exception of the removal of the speculated upcoming films, indicated in "removed unsourced 'in development' films") that were not explained.

—Major Seventh (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To start, this article is a good article currently undergoing some minor clean up to continue the GA rating. I will assume good faith that since you are new to Wikipedia, you might not be familiar with the criteria for GA articles. The lead should summarize the main article itself. That you reduced the lead to two paragraphs decreases the summary. Besides linking common terms such as actress, you added that she is a singer. Well, yes and no. She's not notable as a professional musician, she sometimes sings in her films. You changed her birthplace, cited as Brooklyn, New York, to New York City, which is a more generalized area than the more precise, and more importantly, cited location.

You wrote that she was dissatisfied with her career as the reason she began appearing in more serious films. The article doesn't say that, it basically says she was maturing and thus, did her film roles. Some of the language in the lead that you wrote ventures into using an amount of peacock terms. You wrote "Critics have noted Hathaway's diversity as an actress in her roles in Becoming Jane (2007) and Rachel Getting Married (2008), the latter of which earned her pervasive acclaim, numerous industry awards..." However, the article doesn't include anything about critics citing her diversity, while "pervasive acclaim" is somewhat vague and mostly unsupported by the article. The only other co-star mentioned in the lead is Meryl Streep, which I would suggest is arguably more notable, especially since the next paragraph, by design, includes the fact that Hathaway cites Streep as her "idol". Except you moved that paragraph completely out of the lead and placed it near the bottom in the personal life section. As for citations in the lead, there is no restriction against them, and are used to reinforce that the statements being made are not personal opinion, per WP:LEADCITE. If you had concerns with a couple phrases, that is something else, which wouldn't have been as scrutinized as a major lead rewrite. At 34.5-35000kb, there is no issue with article size, either prior to your edits or after, so size is really not an issue nor a concern. The concern really isn't conciseness, it is comprehensiveness of a career.

I removed and replaced a citation to a source that would not pass WP:RS, replacing it with an acceptable source. I removed a citation in the filmography to IMDB, mostly because there was no reason to use that cite as the film had entered production. I replaced a deprecated style code in the filmography head with current coding. There was next to nothing else changed that wasn't covered by my edit summary regarding reducing the lead. I have no issue with copy editing language that may not be clear, but I do have an issue with a complete rewrite of the lead in the middle of a GA reassessment that should not be controversial, without first broaching such a rewrite on the talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am in accordance with some of your arguments (the peacock terms, her career as a singer), now conscious of their importance and/or relevance to the article's improvement. However, I am still befuddled with others: you have stated that the introduction should summarize the article, with which I concur, but that my reduction in turn shortened the summary. I do not understand how my more concise introduction makes the article less comprehensive; the side-by-side comparison suggests that the information is unquestionably similar with minor amendments (such as the removal of co-stars Steve Carell and Meryl Streep and the addition of her more notable role in The Princess Diaries), including the amalgamation of the two paragraphs regarding her appearance in family films which I addressed in my last post. In this case, lengthening the introduction to "summarize the article" seems redundant. We are attempting to write an encyclopaedia, not a novel, and to-the-point writing would satisfy the reader on a larger scale. Why use five words when we can use one? That quotation may not entirely apply here, but it should be enforced while maintaining comprehensiveness.

I changed "Brooklyn" to "New York City" because, as precise as it is, Brooklyn is a borough of New York City, not the actual city. In my many years abroad, I have found it peculiar how Americans would tell me the state in which they lived rather than the city or the actual country, and this tendency has made its way onto Wikipedia. Many articles have an American's place of birth/death listed as the borough and state or the city and state without even mentioning the U.S. itself! Contrastingly, non-Americans commonly have their city and country listed, and the province/state/borough is not always present. I am not generalizing, but merely making an observation, and I believe that "Brooklyn" is not common knowledge. Is an Australian going to know where Brooklyn is? What about a Russian who speaks English as a second language who has never left his or her country? Thus, I do not understand why Brooklyn is present in the info box rather than the famed locale New York City. Brooklyn should be written into the section detailing her early life.

The article does not state that Hathaway was dissatisfied with her career, you are right. Sources should be sought for this claim, with which I have been made familiar over the years. Another concern is "pervasive acclaim": the adjective is a synonym of "widespread", so I am unsure what you mean by it being "vague", considering that you reverted to "widespread", which is likewise not supported by the article. I moved the information about Meryl Streep as her idol to the personal life section because Hepburn was already listed as one of her favourite actresses. Also, Hathaway's acting-style has been compared to Hepburn's. For this reason, I do not see why Streep needs to be cited as her idol in the introduction when she is mentioned as a co-star, and furthermore, when Julie Andrews is mentioned as a co-star before Streep. How many co-stars are needed? This article is about Anne Hathaway. The repetition is sometimes confusing too, such as Hepburn as her favourite actress and Streep as her idol, which, in my opinion, is a lot to process.

I suppose no harm exists in using citations in the introduction, but the argument in question — sourcing those she admires — does not strike me as something controversial as indicated here. They look messy and unprofessional in an otherwise clean summary. I did not notice that the references in the filmography were in fact from the Internet Movie Database, so I have no complaints with those revisions, and am glad to see only sourced material there. A really good observation! Still, I do not consider the introduction as comprehensive or concise as it could potentially be. —Major Seventh (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's late, and if I miss any points, I'll come back tomorrow and go over what I've written and clarify anything amiss. Basically, a three paragraph summary is more in accord with GA criteria. Most B-class articles have two paragraphs at most, unless they are being developed for higher rating. Brooklyn is the specific part of New York City where she was born. The reason city/town names are wikilinked is so that people who don't know where it is can find that out. On a smaller scale, it's akin to saying Indianapolis when the actual locale is Greenwood, Indiana. I don't think I'd agree with your statement that Brooklyn wouldn't be easily identified as part of NYC, perhaps at some point in the past, but not now. In either case, the link provides the information and the source provides the location. We shouldn't generalize from a specifically sourced location. One is a generality, the other is a specific. I overlooked Steve Carell. That doesn't need to be included, I agree with that, but I believe to meet GA criteria, the lead needs to be about 3 paragraphs. No point in jeopardizing the status just to combine it into two paragraphs. I think your concern regarding conciseness may not coincide with status ratings.

The use of the word "widespread" is a general standard in articles such as this when critical reception is largely positive, however I've not seen the word "pervasive" used in this context in WP articles such as this one. I find it vague because, in general, it isn't a descriptor I find used in regard to critical reception of film work. Acting style is one thing, working with someone an actor considers an idol, especially given that much was made of that when Prada was being publicized, is something else entirely. That is why it is mentioned in the lead along with the Prada acclaim.

If you have suggestions for improving the lead, by all means, post them here and let's discuss them. I'd much rather do that than make them in the article and then discuss them. That gives the appearance of lack of stability in the article, which isn't something that is desirable during a GAR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon my absence. This edit recently conducted by User:Rossrs has in my opinion done the article some good (why even mention Julie Andrews?), and I will address a few concerns that I think can be improved, which will ideally enhance the article's quality:

1. We are both in accord that Steve Carrell does not need to be included.
2. I have read a plethora of online reviews, a large percentage of which used "widespread" to refer to positive reception.
3. Is Hathaway's portrayal of Jane Austen notable enough? Becoming Jane generated considerable commentary because she was cast in the role, but I do not believe it is as significant as Mia Thermopolis, the role for which I am sure she is still best identified. Furthermore, it was her first motion picture role.
4. She later ventured away from the "G-rated" image her early acting career bestowed upon her, starring in the films Havoc and Brokeback Mountain: this sentence needs to be rewritten because it is crufty and informal. Her early acting career did not bestow an image on her, but instead her association with the family-oriented genre of films; however, it should be based around her dissatisfaction with the direction of her career. Again, I will locate as many sources as I can for this claim, which I have heard (even from Hathaway herself) since the release of the second Princess Diaries film.
5. Hathaway has made three appearances on People magazine's list of the world's most beautiful people and the introduction should be updated to accommodate these additional achievements. Out of curiosity, does People magazine have to be the only source of her success in the industry?
6. I have thought of a rather basic way to ensure three paragraphs in the introduction while maintaining comprehensiveness and conciseness. The first paragraph can cover her beginnings and association with family films, the second from Brokeback Mountain to the present, and the third can remain in tact.

I have written a (re)workable introduction to serve as a fundamental. Most of the information merges my former introduction with the one currently used in the article. Tell me your opinion.

1: Anne Jacqueline Hathaway (born November 12, 1982) is an American actress who made her debut in the 1999 television series Get Real. After it was cancelled, she was cast as Mia Thermopolis in the Disney family comedy The Princess Diaries (2001), from which her career gained momentum. Over the next three years, Hathaway continued to star in family films, reprising the role for its sequel, and appearing in Ella Enchanted (both 2004).

2: Interested in other projects, Hathaway distanced herself from her early career image with supporting roles in the films Havoc and Brokeback Mountain (both 2005). She subsequently co-starred with Meryl Streep in the adult comedy The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and appeared in Becoming Jane (2007). In 2008, she earned widespread critical acclaim for her lead role in the film Rachel Getting Married, for which she won numerous awards, and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress.

3: Her acting style has been compared to Judy Garland and Audrey Hepburn and she cites Hepburn as her favorite actress and Streep as her idol. People magazine named her one of its breakthrough stars of 2001 and she appeared in its list of the world's 100 Most Beautiful People in 2006, 2007 and 2009.

—Major Seventh (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm generally okay with this version, with a couple minor comments. I'm still not comfortable with describing her transition to adult themed films as distancing herself from earlier roles. Like I said, she grew up and so did her roles. I actually think the more accurate wording would use the word "transition", as the section title suggests. Also, for the last sentence, I would suggest:

"People magazine named her one of its breakthrough stars of 2001 and she was first listed as one of the world’s 50 Most Beautiful People in 2006."

I'm not sure we need to cover the Beautiful People in the lead each and every time she is on the list. Having said all of this, any of the points in the assessment list that you want to help address would greatly appreciated. The article doesn't really require expansion, just fixing the points listed above. I've yet to find much in the way of reliable sourcing regarding her current relationship with Adam Shulman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)