Talk:Jenna Ortega/Archive 1

Archive 1

Awards and nominations

Can someone put the colors in “Awards and nominations” for the wins and nominations? The template never works for me. Nyantiaz (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done, though I changed nominated to pending for the 2019 entries, since the winners have not yet been announced ([1]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jenna Ortega as Harley Diaz 2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently?

Currently? This and many other Wikipedia articles fail to follow the WP:RELTIME guidelines and avoid using unnecessary vague time words like "currently". This is not a good way to write for an encyclopedia (it isn't even good writing in a news publication). It is bad enough that this happens so often, more than I could ever possibly fix myself. It is worse that when I bothered to tag it {{when}} that my good faith edit was reverted without any explanation. But is is ridiculous to be accused of WP:DE disruptive editing or vandalism for fixing a problem that should not be happening in the first place. I followed the WP:SIMPLE rules and clearly explained my changes and why I was making them with an edit summary, but the editor that reverted my changes did not.

I don't have time to discuss this further at the moment but will try to check back later (in a few days probably). I hope editors will see that the fixes I made will need to be reapplied to the article. -- 109.76.194.186 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

In the first paragraph, please change: "...which won her an Imagen Award." to "...for which she won an Imagen Award."

Reason for change: correct grammar. Thank you 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Sarrail (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

She’s Mexican and Puerto Rican 2601:189:57F:91F0:D88E:7A32:C45C:1573 (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source to back this up? Sarrail (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sourced info in the article says she is American. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Image from 2020

Is it possible to get a more recent image of her for the Infobox? The current one is 2 years old and the images on Google of her in 2022 now seem much better in general. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That's because someone keeps immediately reverting when anyone tries to change it, like they own the page, Instead of helping to find a new one that qualifies. --Mapsfly (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Mapsfly: If you have better image from her from WikiMedia then you can link it (or them) here. If you prefer an image from the net then you can also link them here and someone can check for fair use and load them into WikiMedia if they look good. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"titular role"

In the protected first paragraph, please change "titlure role" to "title role." Thank you. Jeisenberg (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

why 216.164.249.213 (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wording was removed with this edit. Considered redundant, per WP:TITULAR. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

2 things

1. needs to be upped massively on the importance scales, she's currently one of the biggest actresses in the world

2. high school and prom are mentioned in the 2002-2012 section of the bio, which doesnt make sense 216.164.249.213 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

1. No. 2. What do you mean? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. Split the Life and career section into two sections (Early life, and Career) to address point #2 brought up by the IP (I do agree that high school and all the events associated with that occurred, or would have occurred, for her well after 2012). MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Please update to 2022 image .

2400:ADC1:477:8500:965:F698:416D:68F6 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Better image, however, this is not her most recent haircut from Dec 17 2022, like when she appeared with Jimmy Fallon recently. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Current year good portrait image is sufficient. We don't need to track her hair style changes. Current image is more representative. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Early life to Personal life

Do you think it would be more appropriate to rename "Early life" to "Personal life"? Considering it mentions high school and her career in the same sentence... a wiki editor 08:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryGilmoreSeasonTwo (talk • contribs)

Personal is usually related to spouses and marriage announcements; which is not the case here. She has done a make-over haircut over the week-end which might need a new image in the Infobox, I think its being refered to as a 'wolf cut'. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wikieditorforfun1 yes I think it's appropriate to rename early life to personal life Armani128 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Soccer passion

Pbritti, what makes you think the sources talking on her passion towards soccer aren't reliable. They're not forums or blogs. Dr Salvus 17:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: One source, Financial World, looks like an unreliable self-described "gossip" site (akin to Business Insider, which we typically don't allow for BLPs). The other, Essential Sports, is a blog host. In any case, the phrasing of the passage suggested she is currently planning to quit acting to play soccer and gave undue weight to the matter—especially in light of the flimsy sourcing. Can't really comment on if soccer has come up at any other point in her life and perhaps soccer can merit mention; this was sorta a random find when I was looking up the new Wednesday show. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, thanks for moving the discussion here from my talk page—good call as it can help others participate. Merry Christmas! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I've found two Italian sources (I know them very well as I'm Italian) confirming what I said. 1, 2. The sources reported an interview, maybe you can find it (I have limited possibilities of searching them since I live in Italy) or find other English language sources. Dr Salvus 18:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: Both of those are reliable sources! Glad you found something—searches in English were turning up only blogs. Those are more than sufficient to source the material said in the interview. Nice job! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the content with the two Italian sources. Always better than nothing. Dr Salvus 18:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

MPFitz1968, obviously she is not a soccer player but that category is for those who were part of that acadamy and she was! Dr Salvus 17:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Parent's Job

Hi Amaury I read WP:BLPPRIVACY, but nothing say to don't write about jobs. I don't understood why you reverted the edition. Is a very important information of a public person. To read world how it is, anyone need realize the past with many details to see the reality of present. Talk about parent's jobs is not about security or privacity because the information is there in Internet. Sensoring of this information is a kind of force of a facism like a explain of Jason Stanley P.hD in your recent book; Undertanding each details past and realize how present work, is a unique way to combat the facism. Without this information, some younger peoples maybe imagine that Jenna is a low-class becouse of preconcept with mexican and south american people. And dont realize that she, even having ascendence of a "discriminated" etnic people, she was supported strutured family. Is serious that you don't think that this information is important? Anhaabaete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 27 December 2022‎ (UTC)

I have a concern that the source used, gossipnextdoor.com, is not reliable, but cannot be sure as the reliable sources noticeboard and WP:RSP are not giving me any guidance. Given that this is a biography of a living person, I'd be looking to other (reliable) sources to support what was added. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I have posted about the source at the reliable sources noticeboard, under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gossipnextdoor.com. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MPFitz1968. Furthermore, this article is about Jenna Ortega, not her parents. The names of her parents, siblings, etc. and what they do is irrelevant. They don't have articles and are as such not notable. Amaury • 17:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NONAME basically says don't give private info about people incidental to the subject. Her parents are not public figures and are not notable on their own. The only interesting info that relates to Ortega is her parent's ancestry and that doesn't need the identity of her parents to be stated in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of voice recording in Infobox

FWIW, I agree that including a WP:BLP's voice recording in an Infobox basically violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in all but very rare cases (of which this is not one), and should be removed from this article. FTR, I also feel the same about inclusion of WP:BLPs' signatures – for all but the most famous of celebrities (whose signed memorabilia would be worth real money), inclusion of a signature is basically trivial, and also violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong in the infobox. Hearing her voice adds nothing of value. Might be of value if the voice was special enough to be commented on in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I could see doing it at, say, Carol Kane or Gilbert Gottfried, or if it was a voice actor (like Peter Cullen?). But, otherwise, a voice sample should not be included. (Ditto signatures.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez @IJBall

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). - MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

I don't see anything with vocal excerpts that seriously violate this. It's an optional file recording that slightly extends the infobox and allows the reader to hear the subject's voice that has virtually no other affect on the article's quality or the like. You may argue that the vocal excerpts just add unnecessary clutter, but I actually like the idea of it being included in infoboxes. I believe that a vocal excerpt serves a similar purpose to the lead image; of highlight the more visual characteristics of an individual, and is one of the caveats that Wikipedia should use to push beyond the limits of a traditional encyclopedia.

As for signature's, I don't understand @IJBall's argument that we should limit that to celebrities' whose signatures are worth real money. That doesn't provide a significant upside towards signatures assumed to be unimportant, especially when you consider that many of these signatures aren't even sold by the celebrities themeselves, but rather by scalpers who get the signature and then go on eBay to sell them for outrageously high prices. Also, what exactly is "a lot of money?"

All in all, I think that a voice recording should serve as an integral part of an infobox and I don't see any arguments against the inclusion of a signature either. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you don't see it, but both clearly violate the statement from INFOBOXPURPOSE that you quote above (in that they are not "summarizing" already extant content in the article). Bottom line: There seem to be at least 3 editors who support removing the voice clip, so that should probably be removed soon... The signature hasn't gotten enough discussion here, but I personally support its removal as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the signature should be removed as well. For one thing, I don't see anything that supports that it really is her signature. Just an assertion on the image files and the ultimate source it came from https://seeklogo.com/vector-logo/357008/jenna-ortega with uploader identified as Creativearts doesn't have a reputation for fact checking so isn't a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus amongst editors that signatures should be removed, and considering the amount of articles with voice recordings (e.g, Richard Dawkins, Camila Cabello, Tim Pool, and Jimmy Wales) that have audio recordings, there at least is not a consensus regarding vocal excerpts and at most is generally supported. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That just means it is an editorial choice decided by a discussion on the article's talk page whether or not it adds value to the article. I think it adds no value and is a pointless addition to the infobox on this article. What other articles do is based on choices made by their editors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Having done some digging in the talk pages, I've seen practically no mention of the vocal excerpts themselves, nor signatures for that matter. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone adds something to an article and nobody noticed or cared it will likely remain and maybe added to or modified. What happens to most editorial choice content added to articles. If someone does care and thinks it doesn't belong, it gets removed. Next step is a discussion on the article talk page if that removal is objected to - what we are doing here now. See WP:BRD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:BRD, I was saying that there was not discussion on said pages.

To restate my opinion and so as to not derail this conversation, I personally believe that vocal excerpts on Wikipedia should serve a vital role in adding to Wikipedia's functionality as the digital encyclopedia. I personally find various fallacies within the argument of it not being included: for example, should infoboxes exclude the lead image (especially in articles where that is the only image of the topic) be removed because it isn't present elsewhere in the article? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to make that case in a wider forum (perhaps WP:FILMBIO) – a wider discussion about signatures in infoboxes almost certainly needs to take place. But the bottom line is that, at this article, only you seem to be in favor of adding the voice clip. IOW, the consensus is effectively against adding it. That means it needs to be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the Village pump if you're interested.

@Amaury @Geraldo Perez @Soapwort Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Still need to make the case for this particular article. Most you'll get from a wider discussion is that it is OK to do so. But that is still something that requires concensus for a give article, implied if done with no opposition, discussed and consensus acquired if there is opposition to inclusion. Same as any other editorial choice of what to include or exclude in any article. I still see no benefit for this article. If she were saying "my name is ..." it would have the benefit of defining how she pronounced her name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Including an audio clip of a subject pronouncing their name should only happen at articles where it is potentially unclear how to pronounce their name. No one is going to have any problem figuring out how to pronounce "Jenna Ortega". Ergo, an audio clip is totally unneeded here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say a strong consensus more so, but a rougher acceptance of such practice has been established. If there is to be one guideline to rule them all, make an RFC about it so that a stronger consensus exists. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion as unnecessary as per WP:UNDUE. Amaury • 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We have ten years of precedence for including people's spoken voices in the infobox on their biography, and a project dedicated to doing so. I'll wager those saying "hearing her voice adds nothing of value" are currently sighted. The correct pronunciation of "Ortega" (is it "Or-tee-ga", "Or-teg-ah" or "Or-tay-ga"?) is not clear to me, and, no doubt, to many others. WP:WikiVIP refers, and c:Commons:Voice intro project explains in more detail why we should do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support, with no hesitation at all, the inclusion of the voice clip if she were to actually state her own name in it per WP:WikiVIP requirements - it doesn't do that, it is just her randomly talking and is of no value to this article. I suggest replacing this clip with one that meets the WikiVIP requirements. I also think, but this need to be tested, that a short clip of just her saying somethink like "I'm Jenna Ortega" could be justified coming from a non-free source with a non-free-use justification or free-use as non-copyrightable. The WikiVIP project should have the details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)1

There are no "WP:WikiVIP requirements", because the project is in no position to impose requirements on Wikipedia editors, but I do agree that as soon as you have obtained an openly-licensed recording which includes Ortega says her name you should use it to replace the one currently in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am extremely skeptical of the worth of this project for all but those subjects where the pronunciation of their name is obviously unclear. I also, again, question whether doing this runs afoul of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Certainly including recordings of something other than a subject saying their name clearly would violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE IMO, and I would flat out oppose just including random voice recordings in infoboxes.

And there is still the topic of images of subject signatures, which I also believe runs afoul of INFOBOXPURPOSE – there needs to be a much wider discussion about this as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Then I again point out that the correct pronunciation of "Ortega" is far from obviously clear; and that we have ten years of precedence (and thus consensus) for including people's spoken voices in the infobox on their biography. No one is proposing to include "random" recordings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the signatures, but I like the voice recordings. Ortega is known for live action acting work, so (forgive the obvious statement) her appearance and her voice are how she is recognisable to the public. The image of Ortega serves the purpose of quickly identifying her to most readers, as well as illustrating something that can't be described in words to those unfamiliar with her. The voice of Ortega does the same thing, perhaps to a lesser extent, but certainly not so in the case of our blind readers. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the infobox, unless it's a subject saying their name, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. That much should be abundantly clear. If it's a voice sample of a subject saying anything else, it needs to go into the body of the article somewhere, just like any other {{External media}} would. And doing so would be subject to the consensus at that particular article, as I certainly don't think there is site-wide consensus for "automatically" including this kind of thing (at least, I've seen no evidence of such a consensus). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE never verbatim mentions that a subject's voice is not suitable for inclusion, and the exclude any unnecessary content clause would have the best argument for tossing it out. I think that a voice recording of Ortega saying her name (as in Jimmy Wales' IB) is preferred, but not required. It seems like it works well enough to me, and the usage of an infobox is necessary if we can satisfy the inclusion legally. Consider maybe an RFC if you'd like wider community input on this? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

80.208.67.48 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)'

Jenna ortega is official the best actor of all time, she has just won the golden globe. Jenna ortega is also knowing for Wednesday, its a Netflix serie of a beautiful and sweet, kind girl.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also see WP:NPOV. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mention of Ortega's favorite films in Personal life section

This is confusing me, as this is not giving us any context about how it is shaping (or has shaped) her career or herself. Usually, something like "influences" will imply that it affects, or has affected, an individual's career or lifestyle. Per WP:IINFO, there needs to be context explaining to (all) readers why inclusion of this is important in their reading about Ortega. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't belong and looks out of place in my opinion. Might as well be a discussion of her favorite color. This is more a fansite level of content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Italic

I have noticed that "Elena of Avalor" is not Italic, but "Jane the Virgin" and "Stuck in the middle" are. Can you please fix it to make "Elena of avalor" Italic? 74.14.11.231 (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Elena of Avalor

I have noticed that the (2016-2020) dash beside "Elena of Avalor" is shorter than the dash beside "Jane the virgin" and "Stuck in the middle". Why is this? I think it should be fixed to match the other ones. 174.89.136.224 (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Problem fixed. [2] MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

In November 2023, it was announced that Ortega was leaving the upcoming [[Scream VII] due to scheduling conflicts. These news came one day after her co-star Melissa Barrera was fired for social media comments about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war.

}} 174.165.66.224 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pamzeis (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone correct the 1st line

It says 'actor' instead of 'actress'. Apparently I can't edit since it's semi-protected Triple Doctor (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Corrected in the lede and a few other places per this edit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MPFitz1968 and Triple Doctor:, I'm the editor who changed "actress" to "actor". I won't revert or alter your changes but please consider MOS:GNL; we should use gender-neutral language where possible. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Also when it makes sense to do so. Don't follow a guideline to the point it goes against common practice such as the case here. In this specific case "actress" is the correct choice. We generally use actress for women unless the subject has expressed a desire to be referred to as an "actor". Actress is not considered a lessor title which is one of the reasons a lot of the female titles for other occupations get changed to the male title or some other neutral word for GNL reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Outdated gendered terms belong with smallpox in a bygone age; let's leave them there. Female actors are actors. In this source, we find: "I do not want to be pigeonholed as an actor, and I want to do the most diverse roles that I possibly can and really switch up." Anyway I'm done here; do as you wish. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This one isn't outdated and is still in common use even officially for some awards. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Change "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented immigrant" 173.66.38.32 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Original accurately reflects what the reference stated. Also see WP:EUPHAMISM. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jenna Ortega/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll make a start on this this week. I'll ping when I've done a first pass. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead, layout, etc. are fine. Some minor grammar points I'll list below, but good enough for GA as-is.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Has a refs section, which looks fine. Earwig copyvio checker says 29.1%, but looking more closely that's almost all due to quotes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Major aspects covered, and is on-topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No obvious bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is relatively stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are all relevant, with suitable captions, though just "Ortega in 20xx" may be slightly too brief. (No alt text, but that's not required for GA.) Images all claim to have a Creative Commons license.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Early life

• "Ortega stated rejections motivated her" to "Ortega stated that rejections motivated her"
  •  Done

Lead

• Oxford comma suggested before the "and" in "for which she received nominations at the Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy and Screen Actors Guild Awards"
  •  Done

2012–2017

• No comma needed after "Ortega made her acting debut in the sitcom Rob (2012)".
  •  Removed

2018–2021

• "Ortega led the high-school drama film" needs clarifying I think.
  • Could you clarify on what needs clarifying??
    •  Question: Led in what way, as in directed/produced/lead cast member, etc. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Revised

2022–present

• Oxford comma suggested before the "and" in "style of speaking and facial expressions"
  •  Done
• Is "the" needed in "episode of the NBC's sketch comedy series"?
  •  Removed

Upcoming projects

• Change "Ortega is set to star" to "Ortega is set to star in"
  •  Done
• Needs a comma after "a dark comedy co-starring Paul Rudd"
  •  Done
• Is "attached" the right word in "Ortega is attached to star in Alba"?
  • I believe it's correct, but probably not the most encyclopaedic, so I've replaced it

Influences

• "She also admired Fanning's sister Elle and followed both of their careers as a child." should have commas either side of "Elle".
  •  Done

Role choices

• "more-varied" doesn't need a hyphen.
  •  Removed
• Change "in 2021 she did not want" to "in 2021 that she did not want".
  •  Done

Personal life

• "more-challenging doesn't need a hyphen.
  •  Removed

General

There's a few instances of quotes following a colon where I'd have used a comma.

I believe that's just a matter of style and is grammatically correct. Pamzeis (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I do want to note these are all minor, and not essential to achieve GA. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing check

Glancing at the sources they look okay overall. Sampling 24 randomly (which I think is more than enough):

13 - interview, but that's fine

18 - this is for Iron Man 3 - but is it your interpretion of it that it's "successful at the box office"? (I personally agree it was successful though, and ref 20 backs it up.)

• I've removed this bit entirely, as it's not really relevant to Ortega's career

23 - ok

25 - ok

29 - ok

33 - ok

45 - ok

48 - is "craves more independence from her parents" enough to say "stubborn" in the article?

• It does say that she's wilful, which essentially means she's stubborn, according to dictionary.com

52 - ok

75 - ok

80 - ok

94 - ok

95 - ok

103 - ok

110 - ok

120 - self-published by Ty Burr, but I think that's ok in this case.

129 - ok

180 - ok

181 - ok

194 - ok

197 - ok

200 - ok

202 - ok

210 - ok

Pamzeis, All my comments are very minor really, so I have to say well done for this overall! I've give you chance to respond to things before, but I think it's almost ready to be marked as GA. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham: Thanks for your comments :) I've responded to the above. Pamzeis (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

All good to me now, good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.