Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Connelly/archive2

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 25 April 2011 [1].

Jennifer Connelly

Nominator(s): GDuwenTell me! 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC) --Gunt50 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating again this article because it went under major fixes after the first nomination. All the concerns that the reviewers expressed were fixed, including the completion of source templates, copy-editing and matters of style such as dashes. The content of the article is complete and detailed, and covers well the aspects of Connelly's career and life.--GDuwenTell me! 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry to do this again, but I still don't feel the article is ready. Here is another sampling of concerns:

WP:OVERLINK - very common terms like immigrant and advertising don't need to be linked. Also look at WP:EASTEREGG - why does "ACM" link to "AMC", for example?
Still needs copy-editing for grammar (ex. "Publications...included her in its rankings"), clarity (ex. "she was named the face of Balenciaga's advertisements" - do you mean she represented Balenciaga or she represented their ads?), and flow (ex. "Connelly was raised in Brooklyn Heights, near the Brooklyn Bridge, and attended St. Ann's private school focused on arts,[4] except for the four years the family spent living in Woodstock, New York")
Use a consistent date formatting
Referencing format is inconsistent - for example, compare current refs 28 and 67, or 20 and 59
What makes this a reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working to fix the issues. The sources listed were replaced, that "Easter egg" was fixed, the reference format of the marked sources was corrected and I will start to work on the copy-edits. --GDuwenTell me! 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in on one point. Nikkimaria, I'm not seeing inconsistencies in the date formatting. Could you point out one or two so we can identify the pattern you are referring to? Finetooth (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple dates were using leading zeros, but they seem to have been fixed already. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found and fixed one of them. Someone else must have caught the other(s). Finetooth (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the copy-edits that were pointed out.--GDuwenTell me! 15:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm afraid this is not quite there yet. There does not seem to be the level of comprehensiveness required for a FA.

The early life section is a little sparse. Are there any more details?
"Connelly started her career in newspaper and magazine advertising, then moved on to television commercials." Could this be expanded? What did her "career" involve? Working for the newspaper? Modelling on features? Modelling for advertising?
"Between 1986 and 1992, she appeared in several issues of Seventeen magazine..." Doing what?
"...and in December 1986 recorded the pop single "Monologue of Love", which she sang in phonetic Japanese." This half of the sentence has no connection with the first half. And I think it should be explained why she was singing in phonetic Japanese (and how does this differ from non-phonetic Japanese?), as it is the obvious question that jumps out when you read it!
And what is "message of love"?
"Her frequent appearances as a model led to movie auditions..." How? Did someone spot her? Who?
Why did she not graduate from Stanford?
"Connelly gained public recognition with her next picture..." What sort of recognition? People knew who she was? They acknowledged her as a good actor? This needs to be more precise.
"She then starred in several obscure films..." Who calls them obscure?
The remainder of the careers section is too much of a list of films. There are lots of repetitive sentences (She... She... She... In XXXX, ...).
There should be more robust comment on her performances from film critics; critical comments so far are limited to eight exclusively positive one or two sentence comments, including one which says "Critics acclaimed the individual performances, especially those of Connelly..." yet is linked to just one review. Are there no better reviews and have all comments on her been positive? What about print sources?
The personal life section seems trivial; should an encyclopedia article say that she was "once a vegan", or her part in the attempt to stop construction of a sanitation garage? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should that really be considered trivial?. In my opinion, the vegan part describes an aspect of her personality, while the sanitation garage thing is an example of her activism on the area she lives. I don't see why those are not relevant to the article. --Gunt50 (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are not any more relevant details from her early life, the information of most of the reliable sources describes only details of her early career mentioning barely some facts of her life prior to her modelling career. I clarified some of the previous points (involvement in newspapers, magazine and TV advertising, work in Seventeen magazine, Monologue of Love/Message of Love single, recognition and auditions, and Stanford), and I will work on the rest.--GDuwenTell me! 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to correct the style issues and added more critics for her most important movies.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.