Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Stone/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose on 16:09, 26 August 2016‎ [1].

Emma Stone

[edit]

Emma Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the withdrawal of its previous nomination, some fellow editors encouraged me to try again. It was copyedited by a GOCE member and the fellow editor SchroCat also helped in polishing the prose. Now I know that in the biography of contemporary actors (a few example can be the recent ones Josh Hutcherson, Sonam Kapoor and Kalki Koechlin) the career section can get a bit repetitive, but I have really tried hard to make it less monotonous. I am hoping this will be the breakthrough one. Thank you.

For the image review, refer to Talk:Emma Stone#Image review (nothing about images have changed since then). FrB.TG (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made extensive comments in the peer review, and all my concerns were addressed then. The article is in at least as good shape now as it was then. One mini-issue I noticed:

  • "In October 2010, Stone hosted an episode of NBC's late-night sketch comedy Saturday Night Live, describing it as "the greatest week of my life".[5][21]" Ref 21 is from 2008, but this event is in 2010. Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the source. Thanks for your support. FrB.TG (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, SchroCat - both your edits and support are really appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, MWright96. FrB.TG (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ref formatting consistent.
material cited by FN 11 faithful to source.
material cited by FN 17 mostly faithful to source, but source does not mention it is a nickname her mother gave her.
material cited by FN 19 faithful to source.
material cited by FN 61 faithful to source.
No copyvio detected using Earwig's tool.

i.e. Spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Casliber - I have removed the nickname part. FrB.TG (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
cool! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I can see from the article's history that a good deal of work has been undertaken since the withdrawal of the last FAC; Sarastro1 and Mike Christie, as you raised several concerns last time round, could you pls stop by when/if you can and offer your opinions on how things have progressed? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll appreciate any input from you for further improvement even if it is not promoted. FrB.TG (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like at least some of the things I commented on are improved; I'll go ahead and do a review below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've done a copyedit; please revert if I mess anything up. Overall this looks much improved. I just have a couple of minor points:

  • You mention her appearance on Malcolm in the Middle twice, as if it happened both while she was "Riley Stone" and again after she changed to "Emma Stone". Which is right?
  • A minor point, but can you update the "As of April 2016" note to be more current?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike! Thank you for stopping by to copy edit and review the article. I have sorted your above point. As for the other one, I see that nothing about the films have updated or changed so far so I guess it's okay for now. FrB.TG (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the Riley/Emma one, I looked at IMDB, and it appears it was actually Medium where she was credited as "Riley", so that needs to be changed. Unfortunately IMDB is not a reliable source as far as I know so you'll need to find some other way to source that. On the other point, it says "As of April 2016, Stone is filming her third film with Ryan Gosling‍" -- is filming complete? If it's still going on, I'd change this to "As of August"; if it's over, I'd say something like "In early 2016, Stone began filming...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you had it right. I checked the Variety source, the one in the article. It also says so in a direct quote from the actress. The other one is also sorted. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, FrB.TG, I know I'm being picky, but I think neither is quite right yet. For the "As of" one, you can't use an April source to say what's happening in August. If you can't find out whether she is still filming, then if filming began in April you could say "In April 2016, ...", and if you can't tell when filming began, you probably have to leave it with the April date, but change it to past tense: "As of April 2016, she was filming". On the other point, in the Variety source she doesn't say whether it was Malcolm or Medium; she says "I did an episode of ‘Medium’ or ‘Malcolm in the Middle’ and they yelled ‘Riley’ when I had to go to set and I had no idea who they were talking to", so we can't use that source to settle it. From IMDB it's clear that it was Medium, but we need another source. You currently have the article saying she was "Riley Stone" in Malcolm but apparently that's incorrect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I had it correct; she was credited as "Riley" in both of them. This source clearly states that it was during the shoot of Malcolm she realized "Riley" wasn't quite the name for her. Found another one (by Interview) which supports the statement. FrB.TG (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. Support; I think the prose issues from last time around are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: This looks much better than last time. Overall, it is reading much better with the exception of the occasional paragraph. I've read down to the end of the 2009-11 section so far. There are one of two little issues still, however. I'm nowhere near opposing this, but I'd like a little more polish before supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, we are using "Stone" a lot; some variety with "she" or other rephrasing might help this. And I notice that this is repeated throughout the article: do a Ctr-F search for Stone and see how many come up.
Rephrased some sentences and replaced some with either "she" or "the actress"
  • Every sentence in the second paragraph of the lead begins "Stone" or "She"; this makes for repetitive prose and is best avoided. I'm noticing this in a few other places in the article, but it's fairly easily fixed.
  • "a dramatic part in the critically acclaimed film ": I'm not quite sure what a "dramatic" part is in a film; what else would a part be?
  • There are a few parts that I think are trivial and could be removed at little cost to the article: we can be comprehensive without having to include every available detail. For example, do we need the name of her brother, and is it important that she broke her arm in gym? Or that she stated she wanted to be a producer?
I agree with the gym and producer ones, but I think the brother part could stay. I can name several articles that talk about the person's whole family.
  • "She auditioned to star as Claire Bennet in the NBC science fiction drama Heroes and overheard in the casting room, "On a scale of 1 to 10, you're an 11"; but the casting directors were referring to Hayden Panettiere, who was cast instead. Stone has called it her "rock bottom" experience.": Not sure about this; it looks like we are cramming in a quote from an interview, and it seems slightly contrived and doesn't quite have the same meaning as in the source. I'd cut this right back to "She auditioned to star as Claire Bennet in the NBC science fiction drama Heroes but was unsuccessful and later called this her "rock bottom" experience. I'd also date this to 2007 and use the part from the interview where she used this to drive her to get the next part.
  • I'm not sure that I trust Watchmojo as a reliable source, but even if it is, are we really comfortable using it to say that a performance of Stone's was well-received by critics? On a similar note, what are we using to decide which reviews to give as examples? I'm not saying we need to quote every single review for every performance, but I'm curious why we are using the quotes and reviews that we are. I'd prefer a source (more reliable that Watchmojo) that was giving more of an overview of the reviews than choosing them ourselves. For example, is there anything in the Vanity Fair article, or the "Breakout Movie Star" book? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like that but the problem is finding that kind of review, which is a very difficult find. From my experience here editors often pick reviews that either are quotable or best describe the roles the actors play. I have also done something similar here. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Giving one more explanation for above: I tried where possible to select reviews on the basis that they provided understanding on the individual and her work. As a summary article (as opposed to a full biography) we can only give highlights or examples of an individual: so long as we are balanced in the selection of those reviews then we are doing our job. - FrB.TG (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Thanks for your comments and copyedits. I look forward to more of your comments, if any, so that I can improve it more. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've read to the end now, and I'm happy to support. I've done some light copy-editing but nothing major. I'm still not convinced about Watchmojo as a source (the only source I've really looked at), and the selection of reviews still gives me pause, but that is a general issue not about this article as such. It's something I might bring up somewhere else at some point. But none of this affects my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for being considerate enough to return to review, c/e and support this although my response last time isn't something you could call polite (and I apologize for it, again). I've removed the WatchMojo source. FrB.TG (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emma_Stone/archive2&oldid=747333205"