Jump to content

Talk:Kate Winslet/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Wildhartlivie, much of this series of edits was good. If you get a chance reconsider some of the reversions. I will be offline for WP for much of the day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page to his objections. That series of edits added content unsupported by the references present, made factual errors and left some of it confusing to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary thougths

WP:LEAD
The Lead has two problematic sentences and an ungrammatical phrase:
  • "She achieved recognition in a supporting role in Ang Lee's adaption of Sense and Sensibility (1995) and her role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in Titanic (1997)." is ambiguous/ungrammatical. It is unclear what you mean. Are both of these supporting roles? What I think you mean to do is show that soon after debuting in a 1994 film she began receiving critical recognition. This paragraph could be expanded to something like the following. "She achieved recognition for her supporting role in Ang Lee's adaption of Sense and Sensibility (1995) in the form of a SAG award as well as both GG and Oscar nominations. Then, she received numerous nominations for her role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in Titanic (1997) including SAG, GG and Oscar."
    • I reworded the sentence in order to avoid too many Titanic mentions, but I also added "leading" in front of "role as Rose...". That makes a distinction and clarifies the point of concern, and I think it also helps to show that this was the approximate time period in which she progressed from a highly regarded supporting actress to a highly regarded leading actress. Rossrs (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", as well as being nominated for an Emmy." is ungrammatical. The comma suggests that the second phrase is independent, but it is not because it has no subject. If you want to add this thought it should either be without the comma using a verb in the same tense and form as its parallel (has won should be paralleled by has been) or with the comma as an independent phrase such as ", and she has been nominated for an Emmy."
  • "She has been hailed as "the best English-speaking film actress of her generation" by New York magazine." is a well-cited POV statement. The first sentence in the paragraph is very clear. However, her performing generation overlaps with currently active actresses such as Meryl Streep, who is still at it. Sure they probably mean actress born in the seventies or the X generation or Y generation or whatever that generation is, but I don't know. So why don't you say the best actress of the XXXName generation if you can or clarify born in the seventies. I am not sure what her generation is so this claim is very ambiguous. I think the statement might be fine for the body of an article, but the lead should cut to the chase on issues and not raise ambiguities. If you can't define her generation move this quote to the main body and say something more general here.
  • I also think it might be fair to tell the reader which six movies she has been critically acclaimed for in the LEAD. Heck this is probably her most distinguishing claim. We have a whole bunch of movies listed and don't really know which ones are the good ones.
  • I really wish this lead would tell me Her most recent role at the box office was in X and she is currently filming Y. However, Y seems to be a bit of a mystery.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further reflection on the LEAD makes me reel a revamp would be in order. How about a single paragraph that sums up what you would most like them to know about Winslet. I.e., 1 she is an actress (and singer), 2. she is highly regarded as the best of her generation with more Oscar noms than anyone her age has ever had, 3. say which movies she has had Oscar lead and Oscar support noms in, 4. She has won a variety of awards. Then para 2 & maybe 3 do a brief chronology. The, add a par on non acting stuff, especially her relationships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on this, although I don't believe her personal life warrants lead mention. She isn't notable for her personal life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that her personal life is notable or newsworthy. Read WP:LEAD, which says that the LEAD should summarize an article. A lead for a substantive article can be up to four paragraphs and the non-acting part of this article is about 1/4 of its contents. We have to summarize that part in the LEAD too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time working on the LEAD. You can work from there, but I have sort of sketched my vision. I will look at what you have done below more closely tomorrow or Thursday. You were using the conversion template incorrectly. You have to put the correct year and dollar amount in for it to have meaning. I did not look at anything else below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early Life
  • For such a successful and notable person, I wish this section could be a bit more substantive and longer. I just don't know where to tell you to find more content because she is out of my expertise.
That fairly follows what I could find about her early life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winslet was born in Reading, Berkshire, the daughter of " seems ungrammatical. I think it would be cleaner as follows "Born in Reading, Berkshire, Winslet is the daughter of" Fixed.
  • "with Winslet commenting" might be better as "which caused Winslet to comment" Fixed.
  • "Winslet, raised in an Anglican household, began" seems like it would be better if the verb and noun were not split. Either use raised as a verb or move that phrase before Winslet. I.e., either "Winslet was raised in an Anglican household and began" or "Raised in an Anglican household, Winslet began". Fixed.
  • I believe the phrase ", directed by filmmaker Tim Pope," needs to be moved to follow the noun it is modifying and instead of the object of the preposition. How about "Sugar Puffs cereal television advertisement directed by filmmaker Tim Pope at the age of 12". Then, say Pope said. . .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed.[reply]
1991-97
  • link sitcom, casting call, film set, Gothic novels Fixed.
  • "Auditioning for the part of Juliet Hulme, a teenager who assists in the murder of the mother of her best friend, Pauline Parker, played by Melanie Lynskey, she won the role over 175 other girls." is confusing because of the nested parenthetical phrases that go three levels deep. Please re-write this sentence. Fixed.
  • "intending to get the small but pivotal role of Lucy Steele." is remote from whatever it is modifying. Fixed.
  • Add a conversion for US$135 million and US$1.8 billion to current dollars (I use this feature in Fountain of Time).
  • Is there a link for this use of the term exhaustion? Fixed the next sentence expanded upon it.
I changed the wording. She described being scared and that Cameron was a perfectionist and concern over bad early press. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by how to use this. Is it correct? Also, as far as I can tell, the $1.8 billion figure is the current figure from here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1998-2003
I linked hippie. It really isn't a phrase with an article, it's a romance with hippies, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence: "The film was inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade, the actress served as somewhat of a “patron saint” of the movie for being the first big name to back it, accepting the role of a chamber maid in the asylum and the carrier of the The Marquis' manuscripts to the underground publishers." is a bit long and has many terms that are not common usage. How about a period after Sade. Then, "Winslet served. . ." FIXED'
  • Should patron saint be linked to understand its meaning. Although the destination article is in need of development, high profile linkages will help encourage such development. FIXED
  • chamber maid, asylum, and the carrier are also not common words. I tend to WP:OVERLINK, but consider linking these terms. FIXED - I changed "carrier" to "courier".
  • decide whether art house is one word or two in this section and throughout if it is used later. Fixed --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed - both are in the dictionary, but arthouse links to directly to art film.[reply]
2004–2006
  • "A departure from her previous roles," is not modifying a role that was a departure, but rather modifying Winslet incorrectly. 'Fixed
  • Similarly, "A critical and financial success," is modifying Winslet, I believe incorrectly.
  • "Another film of 2004 was Finding Neverland." is a bad lead for a paragraph, which should start a new thought. Find a new way to start the paragraph that is more of a clean slate or at least a less overt reference to prior text. Fixed
  • dancing abilities in Holy Smoke! s/b dancing abilities exhibited (or maybe shown or demonstrated) in Holy Smoke! Fixed, used "displayed"
  • "After declining an invitation to appear in Woody Allen's film Match Point (2005)," needs to be immediately followed by a subject that declined an invitation. In other words, this time it should be followed by Winslet. I believe it is bad form to slip in the (subordinate or parenthetical or some such) phrase "stating that she wanted to be able to spend more time with her children," Fixed
  • What is a Britannia Award? The Britannia Award is given by BAFTA/LA, which is an organization that functions to bring together BAFTA members and the LA film community. It's basically sponsered by BAFTA.
The reference for that statement goes directly to the website belonging to BAFTA/LA that describes what it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "For her work in the film, she was honored with a Britannia Award from BAFTA/LA, a Los Angeles-based offshoot of the BAFTA Awards."? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since no non-insider would know what it is how about "BAFTA/LA, a Los Angeles-based offshoot of the BAFTA Awards, recognized her work in film with a Britannia Award, which is its highest accolade."
I am not sure if I am misunderstanding this award. Is it like the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award or the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "For her work in the film, she was honored with a Britannia Award for British Artist of the Year from BAFTA/LA, a Los Angeles-based offshoot of the BAFTA Awards." It isn't something of that sort of calibre, for Winslet, it was more like "Best Actress", without a competition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2007–present
  • "Resulting in both "a blessing and an added pressure" on-set, it" seems like it might be better as "Resulting in both "a blessing and an added pressure" on-set, the reunion" Fixed
  • "Her seventh nomination, Winslet" seems ungrammatical to me because I think "Her seventh nomination," should be followed by a nomination and not Winslet. Fixed
  • Was the reader one of those films with temporal discontinuity? I think there is probably a film term for this if I am recalling correctly. I don't honestly know. I haven't seen it yet.
  • Do we want to say rave reviews three times?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Changed to "favorable reviews"[reply]
If it is okay,I'll do these tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILM doesn't address filmographies and I can say with much confidence that WP:ACTOR doesn't specify where it should go. Since it covers awards in specific, it seemed okay to be there to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some WP:FA actresses Diane Keaton, Kirsten Dunst, Sharon Tate, and Bette Davis, it seems the filmography is always at the end.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angelina Jolie has awards after the filmography, although it doesn't look out of place because they're in table form. It could be done either way, I guess. The awards result from the films so in a narrative sense, placing the awards after the filmography seems like an effective approach, IMO, but it does look "untidy" to have a big table in the middle of all that text. Alternatively the section could be changed to "Filmography and awards" with the awards in subheaders. This would create a ToC that places "Filmography and awards" as the last section of the article but retain the basic structure as it currently appears. I don't know what would be best. We don't have any project guideline to help us, and common practice allows for either style, however I think you've observed correctly that filmographies usually appear at the end. Not sure if it's something that could be "case by case". What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • The notability of What if is stated more clearly in the acting career section. I don't know that you need to be redundant, but the information about its success should be kept together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view is that we don't need a "music" section. The first paragraph contains a couple of non-notable instances of Winslet singing that could be mentioned alongside the discussion of each project. The "What If" single is notable and could could easily sit in the discussion of the film project. Music is an anomaly for Winslet and something that she's fallen into a couple of times because the role required it. There seems to be a tendency to try to segregate the careers of some artists, and I think it makes more sense if it's done chronologically. Winslet's forays into music make more sense if given in the context of her films. Meryl Streep#Music is another example. A successful soundtrack album for which she contributed vocals, and a top 10 single in Portugal, and she gets a music section. It makes it look like music is a notable element of Winslet's/Streep's careers, and it's simply not. Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I could be convinced otherwise, I like to see stuff other than her acting career. A music section is a fine addition. However, it is imperative not to be redundant. I would argue to extract the music content to the separate section, but could see the opposite decision leading to a good flowing article as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like to see other stuff too, but only if it's independently notable. In Winslet's case, each instance of her singing has been in character for one of her films. The fact that one song achieved enough popularity to be released as a single, and was successful, is certainly relevant, but it's still an offshoot of her film role and I think that's the more appropriate area for it to be discussed. I think it's an entirely different to the situation of performers who have pursued singing and acting careers such as David Bowie, Beyonce or Juliette Lewis. I don't think Winslet is any more a "singer" than someone like Grace Kelly who also had one hit single ("True Love", a duet with Bing Crosby from High Society) or even Bette Davis who had a hit single with a novelty song during the 1940s. I also think it's creates a possible issue of WP:UNDUE. A distinct section could imply that the "music" aspect of the career is significant when it's really not. As for redundancy, well yes, that's another point. It's in "1998-2003" and in a "music" section, which only adds to the problem of undue emphasis. Rossrs (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave that for Ross. I wouldn't have argued for integration. It was modelled after another either GA or FA article, although I can't recall what one it was. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I stand by everything I said, you both seem to favour leaving it as is. Does this require further discussion? Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were concurring to move the Music section into the acting career?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ross was discussing it, I'm in favor of leaving it where it is. Some of her work hit the music charts and were significant. I fashioned this section from another article about an actress who ended up having charted music. Rossrs said he wasn't that invested in integrating it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. While you were making this comment, I was busy integrating. I feel that the section is not needed, and I stated my case. I hesitated to go any further because I felt that Wildhartlivie was not happy with that outcome, but rather was "accepting" it. Perhaps you could both look at how I've integrated it, and if either of you feels it's not helpful, change it back to how it was and I'll leave it. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, whatever. It is the same wording and emphasis. That's fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
Awards and nominations
I'll write Rossrs to ask about this. I've searched for it and can't find it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To satisfy curiosity, I've found 2 people who earned a 4th nom at a younger age than Winslet. There could be more, and this is WP:OR based solely on me looking at a list of multiple nominees. 1. Jennifer Jones age 27. 2. Elizabeth Taylor, age 28. 3. Kate, age 29. Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Lead:

  • I think this sentence (from the lead) is awkward. "Her role in Titanic was the lead female role in the highest grossing film of all time." I also see Titanic mentioned three times in the lead in three different paragraphs. I think it should be condensed, so have removed this sentence and have reworded a later sentence to read, "She achieved recognition for subsequent work in a supporting role in Ang Lee's adaption of Sense and Sensibility (1995) and her leading role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in James Cameron's Titanic (1997), the highest grossing film of all time.". This also allows for the progression from the supporting role to the leading role.
  • Also from the lead. "She is regarded as one of the best actresses of her generation,[1] in large part due to having become the youngest two-time, youngest five-time and youngest six-time Academy Award nominated actress for supporting actress roles in Sense and Sensibility, and Iris as well as for lead actress in Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and The Reader." I think this sentence is torturous and pedantic. The article gives all the relevant detail, but for the lead this is just too much. The main point is that she's highly regarded, and her multiple award nominations are evidence of this, but six nominations and a win would be pretty impressive at any age. It's more than Jessica Tandy achieved, and we all think she's great, and the specifics are covered later in the article. ;-) It's also Academy Award focussed (and her Academy Award nomination tally is repeated later in the lead and this cannot stand per WP:UNDUE) and I know it's the "big" award, but a British actress would be fairly chuffed with a BAFTA and they aren't handed out lightly either. They may not have the same currency on a global scale, but they are highly credible and credibility seems to be the point being made. I won't make the change, because I'm less confident about this than I was about the point above. I would suggest ""She is regarded as one of the best actresses of her generation,[1] and has been acknowledged with several award nominations for her supporting roles in Sense and Sensibility, and Iris and for her leading roles in Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and The Reader." Secondary issue is that film titles are repeated in paragraphs 1 and 2, and paragraphs 1 and 3.
    • This is not how I would do it in the abstract. However, judging that the Bette Davis FA does not mention that she was the first to achieve a total of ten in the LEAD, you may be right. In general, I think a lead should summarize the article to serve the reader who only wants to read a summary. In a summary, I would like to know the important records someone has set. However, it seems the convention is not what I believe. I think this differs from many fields. I do a lot of sports article where you summarize all the important records and championships in the LEAD. See FAs such as Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc. It seems odd to me to remove the most important records in acting, but I guess that is convention. I won't fight you on such a change. It is odd to me though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To tell you the truth, I'm not sure exactly what I'm suggesting. I think the convention is to steer away from "Kate Winslet is an Academy Award winning actress" in the opening sentence, but it's generally accepted and encouraged that notable awards and achievements are given their due in the lead. I'm not intending to obscure any of the important details, and I'm keeping WP:LEAD uppermost in my mind. I've been looking at a few leads. I like Bette Davis, but I wrote that one so I'm biased. Seriously, it ain't perfect. Perhaps it should include that she was the first 10-time Oscar nominee. It's an extraordinary achievement. I've also been looking at some FAs such as Angelina Jolie and Reese Witherspoon. Neither have excellent leads - one is good and one is adequate in my opinion. I had not looked at Kirsten Dunst, but I will. As you mentioned with the sportspeople, the awards are significant and equally so for Winslet. I'm just trying to think of a way to condense the content so that everything is given the appropriate degree of weight, but that individual film titles are not repeated unnecessarily. Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the lead and a proposal can be found here. Also included are a few other lead sections that I used as guidance.

  • That proposed LEAD is excellent except that "Recognised for choosing diverse roles" borders on decorative. All great actresses choose a variety of roles. It need not be stated. If we state she has six noms, it goes without saying she did not do a bunch of sequels. No one would respect that in the way she is respected. If you can show me an actress who has six noms for which this is not true, I will recant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, do we need to include the year with every mention of the film. I think that is similar to linking it redundantly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we do. First off, I was thinking the year should go with the first mention only, of each film, but after I played around the with the lead, The Reader is the only film that is mentioned twice. Its second mention is as part of a list of films, all being mentioned for the first time. I think it would look odd to exclude the year from it. It looks a little clunky but I can't think of another way of doing it. Rossrs (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I think you should add the 10 noms to Davis if it has largely been your work since others will accede to your thoughts in all likelihood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you mentioned Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky. When I read them, it suddenly hit me the difference between sportspeople and film makers. The athletes make their mark by winning events, by breaking recordings, by amassing statistics. An actor need not do that. They become a part of culture by doing something that elicits an emotional reaction, with or without recognition or (obviously they need recognition) acclaim. An athlete can't hide in the shadows, but an actor can. Somebody like Clint Eastwood is an icon because he touches people and they respond. He's won a lot of awards too, but he'd still be a huge figure even without awards. So.. that helped. To explain my thought processes:

  1. Academy Awards. It's impressive that she was the youngest to get two nominations, but even more impressive that she was the youngest to get six. So I left it at six, and the article gives the further info. It belongs in the first paragraph as it's such a huge achievement. It segues nicely into the other notable awards, so I left them in the first paragraph contrary to my earlier suggestion that they should be moved. In the first paragraph, with the exception of one film, it's about the overall acclaim, rather than specific Oscar nominated performances. I thought it was WP:UNDUE weight to list the Oscar films separately to films such as Revolutionary Road which prompted the "best actress" comment from New York Times and which may have been Oscar nominated if not The Reader. I thought it was more appropriate to note that multiple performances have attracted multiple award nominations, so I went through the filmography and listed all that had more than about 5 different nominations. This added about 3 titles to the list which were highly acclaimed but not Oscar nominated. I think this is more balanced.
  2. Diversity. A common thread throughout the article is that Winslet makes unusual choices, and doesn't do blockbuster films just because she can. She's been well received in virtually every shift of genre she has made, so I included this in the first paragraph as part of the overall perception of her. She's never been stereotyped because she's never done the predictable thing.
  3. Specifics and consistency. Date for all films/projects. Removed director and character names as they are in the article for anyone that wants them, and they distract from Winslet. For consistency, and to keep the spotlight squarely on Kate, I've used only the film titles. Included The Holiday and Flushed Away as commercial successes, lest we think she's only about the art. Also expanded on her hit single. It reached number one in about 5 countries, so I think it's only right to name it and the project that spawned it.
  4. Context. I think the New York Times quote is a good one, but I think it needs context even as part of a summary, so I linked it to Revolutionary Road, which was the film that drew that particular comment. Otherwise it's not so clear. The comment could have been made any time for any reason.

I feel fairly happy with this, and I look forward to your thoughts. Rossrs (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change to my proposed version of the lead, on the understanding that it's not a done deal and that it may require further work. Rossrs (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She has won awards from the Screen Actors Guild, British Academy of Film and Television Arts, and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and she has been nominated for an Emmy." This should be moved to the end of the film discussion especially if the change I suggest above is implemented.
  • "She has been hailed as "the best English-speaking film actress of her generation" by New York magazine" and "She is regarded as one of the best actresses of her generation" are too similar to both be included in the list. Which one should we keep? Again, this impacts on my suggestion above. Rossrs (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • i just noticed that some film titles are followed by the year of release and some not. It looks odd and I don't know the correct way of doing this. I'd be less concerned if the date was included on the first mention of the film, but that's not the case. Also, " Todd Field's 2006 drama Little Children..." - why not "Todd Field's drama Little Children (2006)", in line with the style of date used for the other films. Not sure what is correct here. Rossrs (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Green tickY b (MoS): Green tickY
    The location of the filmography should be monitored for stylistic preference conformity with whatever evolves as the norm for actors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have encouraged a relatively full form WP:LEAD compared to other actors. If this becomes abnormal or is undesirable in pursuit of higher quality ratings feel free to redesign.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Green tickY b (citations to reliable sources): Green tickY c (OR): Green tickY
    Please check the problematic link at the link checker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though the link checker shows the link as dead, opening the url itself brings up the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Green tickY b (focused): Green tickY
    I just wonder if she has custody of her first child.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Green tickY
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: Green tickY
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Green tickY b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Green tickY
    Four images are all suitable, properly-licensed, properly-tagged with warnings such as personality rights, and properly-WP:CAPTIONed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Green tickY

I apologize for my slow progress on guiding this article. I also apologize that I do not know the stylistic issues at WP:FILM to really be sure I am sending this article in the proper direction. I appreciate the efforts of all concerned in trying to improve this article. This article is now looking quite good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An inappropriate verb used here:

[edit]

From the Random House Dictionary, 2010 edition:
Accrue: 1. to happen or result as a natural growth, addition, etc. 2. to be added as a matter of periodic gain or advantage, as interest on money. 3. Law: to become a present and enforceable right or demand.

The winning or giving out of awards is not a processess of natural growth, and neither is it a process of periodic gain, such as the earning of interest in saved money.

To the contrary, the winning of an award is something that happens as an unpredictable, unforseeable event. For those who know about such things, like I do from graduate-level courses in the field. The winning of awards is best considered as a Poisson random process.

To let me be a little redundant, award-winning is not a process of natural growth, but rather, the winning of an award is an extraordinary event, and not a mundane process of natural growth.

Thus, we have to think of a verb that has an entirely-different connotation than "accrue" does. I will think of one and make the change. 98.81.26.101 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Winslet/GA1&oldid=850917806"