Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kate Winslet/archive1

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 via FACBot (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2017 [1].

---

Kate Winslet

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Who hasn't heard of Kate Winslet? She is the ingenue in that big-boat movie. She is the pedophile Nazi in that Holocaust movie. She is the brainwashed Australian who pees on herself. She is the mother who is erotically spoon-fed a peach cobbler by a convict. She is the girl with the blue hair in that "what-really-happened-in-this-movie" movie. Oh, and she's also every Apple customer's dream woman with a hairdo to die for. Will she next be the woman with a big shiny star on Wikipedia? Kind reviewers and collaborators, let's make that happen. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:RMS_Titanic_3.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: added. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was reverted, saying that it isn't a US work. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: changed to a different image. I'm not well versed in copyright laws, but this seems to include a UK PD tag since the image was taken at the docks of Southampton. Is that apt? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Potentially, but even if so we still need to know its status in the US - Commons requires that images be free in both US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: got it. Changed to one in the US PD. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, when and where was that one first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the description page the photograph was taken in Ireland in 1912, but it has a US PD license. I'm really no expert at this, so am I missing something? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Two things: since it's on Commons we need to worry about what its status is in country of origin, and that US PD tag requires us to demonstrate a pre-1923 publication (not simply creation). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Umm...that seemed a bit above my paygrade, so I've removed an image of the Titanic in favour of a DiCaprio shot. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 11: page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens. See also 81, 117, 203, 207, 216, 218, perhaps check for others I may have missed.
• Ref 30: requires page no.
• Ref 31: "Plays and Players" is the name of the journal, not the title of the article that contains the information you are citing
• Refs 46 and 52 appear to be the same source, although 52 has the wrong date
• Ref 61: "Los Angeles Magazine" is the publication. The title of the cited article is "Say Anything"
• Ref 91: requires page no.
• Ref 102: The link on "Collider" goes to the wrong article
• Ref 159: Publisher missing
• Ref 184: Dead link (Belfast Telegraph)
• Ref 189: Publisher missing - it's implicit in the title, but should still be given
• Ref 222: Where does the source text confirm the information cited to it: "Winslet's weight fluctuations over the years have been well documented by the media"? Not on p. 182.

Otherwise, sources seem of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: thank you for the review. All done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A couple of points still outstanding: Ref. 30 – Itunes is not the publisher of the "Heavenly Creatures" soundtrack. And the link in what is now 101 is still going to the wrong Collider article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: umm... iTunes is the website that I've used to cite the Heavenly Creatures soundtrack. What should the publisher be?

As for the Collider source, it opens the right page for me. Is it not doing so in your browser? That's strange. What is it redirecting to? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can work it out, the soundtrack publisher is BMG Rights Management. iTunes is merely the means of delivery. As to Collider, it's not the link to the source that's the problem, it's the link on the publisher's name. I think the link you want is to this, not to an article about particle acceleration. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: oh, lol. Silly me. Sorry about that. Done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments from – Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I had to provide some comments after reading that charming post in the nomination. My comments are below and focus primarily on the prose: In the following sentence (At school, she was made head girl and took part in productions of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and played the lead role of Wendy Darling in Peter Pan.), I would add “and” between Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe rather than a comma. You are listing two things tied to the verb “took part” and the later half of the sentence on her role as Wendy Darling is separate in terms of that. This is more of a clarification question, but in this part (she played key roles as Miss Hannigan in Annie,), do you think that you should include the full name of the character “Miss Agatha Hannigan”. Miss Hannigan is probably the most recognizable to a majority of readers, but I just wanted to raise this point to you. This is yet another clarification question about the same sentence. Are you using the Oxford comma in this article? If so, there should be a comma after “The Jungle Book” in the list of her key roles? If not, then it is fine as it currently stands. In this sentence (To support herself she worked at a delicatessen), there should be a comma after “herself”. When reading the sentence on her appearance in Casualty and looking at the cited reference, I found the following quote “She once told the Radio Times that appearing in Casualty taught her a big lesson in how to be natural in front of the camera.”. Do you think it would be relevant to include information from this quote in the article or would it be too small/trivial? (I am not necessarily recommending using the quote as you could paraphrase it if you feel that it is necessary). I thought about including this, but I couldn't find the original Radio Times interview, so I decided to leave it out. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense; just wanted to point out as a possibility. If you could not find the original Radio Times interview, then it is best to avoid it as you have done. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In this part (and said that after returning home she would "just sit and sob my heart out”), there should be a comma after “home”. In this part (and thus asked her to practice tai chi, read gothic literature, and learn to play the piano), I think that a link for “gothic literature” would be beneficial. In this part (a young woman with suffragette leanings who falls in love with her cousin,), do you think that a link for “suffragette” would be helpful? This part (After unsuccessfully auditioning for Kenneth Branagh's 1994 film Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Branagh cast Winslet for the part of Ophelia,) needs to be revised as it currently reads that Branagh unsuccessful auditioned for his own film. If you want to keep the dependent clause in the beginning, then Winslet would be to be in the primary subject position to connect with the clause. I am not certain what this sentence means (Despite the acclaim, Jude and Hamlet were not widely seen.). It is a little ambiguous as it could mean one of two meanings: 1) both films were commercially unsuccessful or 2) both films had limited theatrical releases (or a hidden third option of both 1 and 2). I would make the meaning clearer. This part (With a production budget of US$200 million, Titanic's highly arduous principal photography) will need to be revised as it could be read as the principal photograph having the production budget of US$200 million rather than the film itself. Sorry for pointing out nitpicks like this, but there needs to special care when using dependent clauses in the beginning of a sentence to match it with the subject of connected part. There are quite a few quotes in the article (which is fine), but I am not certain that the "luminous performance” quote is really needed. I think that you can paraphrase this. For this part (That same year she provided her voice to a fairy for), there should be a comma after “year”. I would add the year in which Elegy for Iris was released. Right, so this is what I feel about this, and the subsequent comments about including the year in which novels were released: Since most of Winslet's films are adaptations of books, plays, memoirs, etc, I don't particularly wish to have a "sea of years" mentioning the release of each of them. Do you believe it's absolutely necessary to mention the years, or is my concern valid? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I was under the impression that it was a required part of the prose as it adds context to when the books, plays, memoirs, etc was released compared to the adaptation, but I understand why you believe it is not necessary and would get in the way of the prose. I am not necessarily a fan of the "sea of years" either, and I much prefer the way you have currently worded it so I understand your point and I think that everything is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I am not sure about the value of the second image in the “2004–2007: Romances, comedies, and Little Children” subsection as it is rather low quality and you can only see half of her face. I have changed it to a closer-shot of her face. Do you think it's better or should I remove it entirely? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Since there is already been an image review, I would not worry too much about it as a much more experienced users than myself has already given it the OK. I am not a huge fan of the photo, but it boils down to personal preference so I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I would add the year in which The Feminine Mystique was released. Do you think it is notable to include how people paralleled her Oscar win for The Reader with her performance in Extras (specifically the line “I’ve noticed that if you do a film about the Holocaust, you’re guaranteed an Oscar.”)? Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Haha, yes. I did think about this, but decided against it to enable readers to make the connection themselves. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense to me. You have actually done it in a really smart way that if a reader goes through the entire article, then the connection between the two is rather obvious so I think that is really cool. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I recall that there was a lot of controversy surrounding The Reader, and Winslet’s character in particular. Do you think it would be appropriate to add a small part about that? Since it more so deals with the character and not Winslet’s performance, I understand if you think it should be kept in the article on the film itself. Just to clarify, you mean the controversy about her character's sexual relationship with a minor, or the appalling Harvey Weinstein brouhaha? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Actually not either (though I completely forgot about the sexual relationship with a minor part), I was more so referencing Winslet's portrayal of a Nazi/perpetrator of the Holocaust as I know that attracted some pretty strong opinions on both sides. I remember taking a Holocaust literature class during my English M.A., and my professor hated both the book and the movie for this reason. Again, I am not sure if this information is necessary for the article on Winslet or for the article on the film (and book) as it is not directly tied to Winslet's performance (more so tied to the premise itself). Hope this makes more sense. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In this part (Winslet took two years off work until she was "ready to engage with my creative side again”), do you think that “my” in the quote should be changed to fit the flow of the sentence? I would include the year in which the Divergent novel was released. Same goes for Matilda and The Dressmaker novel. I am not sure about highlighting “a film series” in the subsection title as she only appeared in two films of the series. It seems a little bit like undue weight to me, and both films could be clumped into the “Critical disappointments” part of the title. Umm... you see the two Divergent films were box office hits despite the critical lashing, and I wanted the title to reflect that this period in her career did involve a bit more than just a series of critical disappointments. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Understandable. I forgot about the commercial aspect of the films, especially given how the film franchise fell apart in subsequent releases. I think that I just left my own personal dislike for the series color my opinion there so I apologize for that lol. Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with your choice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) This is more of a clarification question (yet again, sorry about that), but is “flop” appropriate for a Wikipedia article? Just wondering as it sounds rather informal. I think it's fine. Box office bomb or box office flop are commonly used to indicate a commercial failure in multiple FAs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Do you think that the “2016–present” subsection should have a subtitle to go along with the rest of the subsections? I do want to, but I couldn't think of something apt. Maybe if Wonder Wheel gets her awards attention later this year, I can come up with something. Do you have any suggestions? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I could not think of anything either, and since the section will most likely be continued with her further career activity, it is probably best to wait until some sort of theme forms over the course of the next several years. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Link “A Christmas Carol”. It's already linked in this part, "Winslet's third film release of 2001 was the animated film Christmas Carol: The Movie, based on Charles Dickens' novel", despite not mentioning it by name. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In this sentence (Woody Allen's Wonder Wheel, a drama set in 1950s Coney Island, was her next release.), I would substitute “her” with “Winslet’s” to avoid confusion with the previous sentence. I would include the criticism against Winslet for working with Woody Allen for Wonder Wheel considering the director’s history and her response to it. Do you think it's necessary to do this? She did face quite a bit of flak for working with both Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, for obvious reasons, and I did think about adding a sentence or two about it, but then I thought: Winslet has nothing to do with those controversies at all, does she? And her response to allegations against them has typically been a polite "no comments". What do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I would normally agree with you, but given the cultural context of the Weinstein case, there has been a heightened awareness of film industry people with more unseemly pasts (Allen being one for obvious reasons). In her interview with the New York Times here, she gave an actual response to a question about working with Allen despite the allegations that went beyond a "no comments". She also made a "no comments" response in Variety here. And media outlets were rather critical of her decision to work with Allen and her response, as noted by these sources: 123. There seems to be criticism against Winslet for either side-stepping the conversation entirely or praising Allen while condemning Weinstein. Hope this makes sense; I have a tendency to ramble. I just figured that a small sentence or two may be helpful (as it directly relates to Winslet), but if you feel that it is more appropriate for the article on the film, let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Winslet is misspelled in the caption of the photo for this section. The image itself is not the greatest, but I understand there is not much out there right now that can be used (I am sure in the future it will be replaced with a higher quality image). Do you think her role as an English voice actor in Mary and the Witch's Flower should be mentioned? I chose not to do mention this since it's a dubbing job for a foreign film. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I am not sure about the construction of opening sentence for the “Humanitarian endeavours”. It is a little bit disorienting to have a sentence start off with “An orange-coloured top”. Do you think it would be better to start off with Winslet or whoever sold this top instead? (This is more of a stylistic preference though so it is up to you). What is the relevance of the image in the same section? How does it connect with the material? It may be better to have this one replace the second image in the “2004–2007: Romances, comedies, and Little Children” subsection. Well, the image doesn't really connect with her charity work, but none of the free images available on Commons do. So got to do the best with what we've got. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense. Again, a more experienced reviewer than myself has already passed this for an image review so there is not wrong with it so it is fine as it currently stands. I just found it an odd choice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In the third paragraph of the “Humanitarian endeavours” section, there are two sentences that start with “In 2015”. In this part (In a 2008 interview she said that), there should be a comma after “interview”.

Wonderful work with the article as a whole and I apologize for the large amount of comments. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I enjoyed reading this article and it was nice to learn more about this particular actress. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a positive review, Aoba47. There's no need to apologise at all. I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in giving this such a detailed review. Most of your concerns have been addressed. Awaiting your comments on my responses to the rest of them. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I left the responses to your comments above. Everything appears to be handled, but I have a few additional questions about the Reader and Winslet's work with Woody Allen. Hope you have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for the prompt response. Having thought it over, I agree with your comments on The Reader and the Woody Allen bit. I'm intrigued by your professor's reaction on The Reader, as I loved the novel tremendously. Anyway, I've included a sentence or two about both the "controversies". It was quite challenging to summarise these bits given that they may not reflect the entire truth. Do you think it's okay or does it need more work? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your responses. Just for clarification, I am actually quite interested in both the book and the film adaptation of The Reader as I find it quite a fascinating premise (not to sound trivializing when discussing such a large traumatic historical event), but a lot of my academic writing in graduate school focused on trauma studies that included the perpetrator's point of view so I guess it makes sense then lol. I am very happy with the additions that you made as they are very strong and great ways of dealing with rather difficult subject matters (wonderful choices for the supporting sources too). If the Allen discussion unfolds any further, then that part may be subject to change, which is fine. I fully support this for promotion; a very interesting and informative overview of the actress' career. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Aoba47. It was a pleasure interacting with you. I'll take a look at your FAC later this week. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, and it was a pleasure working with you too. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose from Moisejp

I've read the article twice and made a number of small copy-edits throughout. Two minor suggestions that don't affect my support:

• "Catherine Shoard of The Guardian took note of the "emotional honesty" Winslet brought to her part, but criticised the film." Readers may wonder what about the film Shoard criticised.
• "The cast rehearsed each act like a play and filmed it in sequence. Winslet collaborated closely with Fassbender, and their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman." It would be nice to know in what way the their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: thank you for the support and for your helpful copy-edits. I really appreciate it. As per your two points, I've elaborated on the prose. I hope the infos are clearer now. Thanks again, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from ArturSik

Also Support on prose. I have read the entire article and as you might have noticed I've made a few minor amendments. Overall, it all looks good to me and could be promoted. Well done :) ArturSik (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the copy-edits, ArturSik. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Krish

• Support: This is a very strong article and it really deserves that bronze star.Krish | Talk 14:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Krish. That's very kind. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Harry

• She subsequently eschewed parts in blockbusters "subsequently" is on of those words that makes a copy-editor pause; off the top of my head, it means at least three different things. Unless you're implying a causal relationship between Titanic and her eschewing blockbusters, I'd suggest replacing "subsequently" with "After Titanic" or at a push something like "later".

Tweaked. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• in which she played one of her first roles set in contemporary times read a little awkwardly

I've tweaked it. Does it read better now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Do we need so much emphasis on her awards in the lead? Sure, things like first BAFTA/first Oscar are lead-worthy but as it is I think the multiple awards are weighing down the prose (and presumably her mantlepiece!).
• This sentence reads awkwardly, probably because you have "joined the divergent series" sandwiched between two named roles for which you mention her awards (again! See above).

Right, so I've split the sentence into two. Is it better now? I've mentioned 5 of her awards in the lead -- the Oscar, the Emmy, the Grammy (all of which are highly notable) and the 3 BAFTAs. I can remove the BAFTA wins if you think it's a bit much? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kate Elizabeth Winslet was born on 5 October 1975 You don't need to repeat the full name and DOB in the body (I'm pretty sure that's in MOS:BIO)

Removed her middle name from the sentence but kept the DOB as the MoS doesn't forbid it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Punctuation should go outside quote marks unless it's an integral part of the quote (MOS:LQ)
• with The Washington Post writer Desson Thomson calling her Generally avoid using "with" like that; it's not really professional-level writing

Changed.

• What does "campaigned heavily" mean? "Campaign" is a verb more commonly associated with politicians than actresses.

Changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe try and find a way of eliminating a few uses of "of the same name"

Done.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• While vacationing at Richard Branson's estate "vacation" is hardly ever used in British English, and using it as a verb sounds like nails on a chalkboard to most Brits.

Changed to "holidaying". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Winslet is widely considered to be among the best actresses I always pause at phrases like "widely considered", especially when they're followed by a plethora of references. Do the sources say she's widely considered, or are those four footnotes meant to demonstrate the width of the consideration? I know it's a subtle point, but we can't say "widely considered" in Wikipedia's voice unless the sources say exactly that. Combining multiple sources that say she's the best actress (or similar) and using that to demonstrate "widely considered" is original synthesis, which is considered a Very Bad Thing™ on WP, even if it's probably true!

Changed to "Several journalists consider Winslet to be among the best actresses of her generation". I believe that's not synthesis. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• A journalist for Elle Any reason not to name them?

The journalist isn't mentioned by name in the source, hence I made do with "a journalist". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I removed a couple of curly quotes; check for more (MOS:CURLY); I tried a find-and-replace but it couldn't tell the difference

A little difficult to spot these, but I couldn't find any offending ones. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I made quite a few edits as I read through, mostly to the prose and few other minor bits and bobs; please check my edit summaries and revert if I've messed anything up. I enjoyed reading it. A few modest hurdles before it's ready for its star, but nothing fundamental. More importantly, if I was going to watch a Kate Winslet film over the weekend, which one would you recommend? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: thank you for the review and the copy-edits. I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

Anyway, if you're in the mood for a highbrow drama, then I'd highly recommend either Revolutionary Road or Little Children, which are among my favourite of her films. But given the time of the year, the warm and fuzzy The Holiday is both timely and a suitable distraction from the woes of the world. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely give one of those a go. I've had a look over the changes and your replies and I'm satisfied, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ Michell. Do let me know if you end up watching any of these films. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

I see a few too many quotes that could be summarised. Why "orange-coloured"? Although not a vegetarian, in 2010 Winslet narrated a video for PETA that showed animal cruelty in the production of foie gras? Is there a connection here? Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I did wonder about "orange-coloured" and nearly edited it out as I was going through, but I figured someone at some point has thought it might be ambiguous and it doesn't hurt anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't "orange top" cover it, if it's important? --John (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, John. So the orange top Winslet wears in Eternal Sunshine has a bit of cultural significance to fans of the film. As for the "vegetarian bit", I can remove it if you want, but the reason I kept that in was because she supported a PETA campaign despite eating meat. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So what? --John (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Better?. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. --John (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, the quotes.

• "quite stocky as a child" 1

• "I didn't lock myself away and give up on my dream. I fought back." 2

• "acting master class" 3

• "just sit and sob my heart out"

• "a bright-eyed ball of fire, lighting up every scene she’s in" 4

• "making Sue into a sassy, defiant woman who would rather be right than happy" 5

• "hit a certain level of intellect that I don't believe I have" 6

• "well beyond her years" 7

• "You don't understand! I am Rose! I don't know why you're even seeing anyone else!" 8

• "big, bold, touchingly uncynical" 9

• "stifled ardor with [...] pained delicacy" 10

• "still had a lot to learn" 11

• "burn[ing] out by the age of 25" 12

• "obliviousness and optimism" 13

• "really brave" 14

• "Showing the kind of courage few young thesps would be capable of and an extraordinary range [...] from animal cunning to unhinged desperation, [Winslet] holds nothing back." 15

• "most daring actress working today" 16

• "continuing to explore the bounds of sexual liberation" 17

• "correspondence of spirit between them" 18

• "too ridiculous" 19

• "the zanier part" 20

• "uniquely funny, unpredictably tender and unapologetically twisted romance" 21

• "electrifying and bruisingly vulnerable" 22

• "her corseted English rose persona in favor of a drunken, motormouthed bohemian" 23 (shortened)

• "radiant and earthy as ever" 24

• "exceptional in a delicate and finely tuned performance" 25

• "the showiest role and filthiest one-liners" 26

• "perfect" 27

• "registers every flicker of Sarah’s pride, self-doubt and desire, inspiring a mixture of recognition, pity and concern". 28

• "struck by how emotionally crippling that must be" 29

• "tiny, oppressive, claustrophobic" 30

• "the best English-speaking film actress of her generation" 31

• "there isn’t a banal moment in Winslet’s performance—not a gesture, not a word" 32

• "there was nothing of her that I could relate to" 33

• "honesty and truthfulness" 34

• "a haunting shell to this internally decimated woman" 35

• "absolutely fearless here, not just in her willingness to expose herself physically, but her refusal to expose her character psychologically" 36

• "incredibly powerful, upsetting and disturbing" 37

• "quiet, heartbreaking masterpiece" 38

• "terrific—intelligent, focused and seemingly devoid of ego" 39

• "the Citizen Kane of awful" 40

• "her pleasure in the text is infectious" 41

• "more vulnerability than strength" 42

• "mawkish and melodramatic" 43

• "what she can to add layers to her vulnerable-victim role" 44

• "emotional honesty" 45

• "strength and grace" 46

• "gravitas that isn’t always in the script" 47

• "really glamorous, nasty piece of work" 48

• "cold and crass" 49

• "never looked more painted and tired" 50

• "likable and charismatic" 51

• "in a permanent state of falling apart" 52

• "shabby character with feverish life" 53

• "unbelievably heartbreaking" 54

• "mess" 55

• "only time in my life that I've ever lost control of my instincts" 56

• "surprisingly amicable" 57

• "we go to the park, kick a ball around, go to a museum, watch a movie together or just hang out at home playing Monopoly" 58

• "there's no way I'm going to allow my children to be fucked up because my marriages haven't worked out" 59

• "The countryside, particularly, is very good for my head. I love that I can go for a walk, pick blackberries and feed them to the baby as I go along." 60

• "unconventional" 61

• "less of a family" 62

• "getting breakfast and packing lunches and doing the school run" 63

• "soul and attitude of a jobbing actress, trapped in the body of a movie star" 64

• "gravitates toward troubling roles in smaller films" 65

• "thorny, potentially unsympathetic" 66

• "unsentimentalized, restless, troubled, discontented, disconcerted, difficult women" 67

• "the most prepared and well-researched actor on set" 68

• "to reposition directors’ and producers’ perspective on her" 69

• "angst-ridden women" 70

• "women who are either finding their way out of a situation, looking for love, having some struggle within love, or questioning the big things in life" 71

• "you have to confront your true feelings every single day. And that’s pretty exhausting. Then you have to go home and make dinner" 72

• "she has the kind of personality that puts an entire room at ease, dropping F-bombs and self-deprecating remarks intermittently, while charming everyone with that buttery English accent" 73

• "authoritative, almost ambassadorial aura" 74

• "articulate, sophisticated, [with] a definite hint of grandeur" 75

• "unfiltered, frank, sometimes blunt" 76

• "a refreshing lack of pretension" 77

• "I just didn't want people to think I was a hypocrite and that I'd suddenly lost 30 lbs or whatever" 78

So, 78 quotes! This is way too many. I think most of them can be summarised or just removed. I'm not going to put a number on it but I'm looking for a substantial reduction in the quotes. --John (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, so before I trim/remove these (I'm sure some can be paraphrased; but I'm not entirely sure or keen on a "substantial reduction"), I'd like to ask @FAC coordinators: to kindly clarify how many quotes are too many at the FAC? Does the FAC requirement mandate us to use as few quotes as possible or is that something we can work around depending on the article? More specifically, as you can see above, barring a few "long ones" none of the quotes are more than a couple of words each. Is that problematic as well? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, there isn't an actual number, but I think 78 is definitely way too many. Although it has a slightly different and narrower focus, you may find Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Reception sections again and the essay WP:RECEPTION to be of interest. Don't overuse direct quotations. Paraphrase whenever you can—it's easier to quote rather than rework the wording to fit the point of the paragraph, but it's your job to make the argument. Use quotes for illustration, not because you can't think of any other way to say something. is how Mike Christie puts it, and I think that is right. Take (more-or-less at random) no.57: "surprisingly amicable". Are we really saying there is no way to summarise this without quoting verbatim from the source? Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V is certainly an easy way to write an article, but it does not lead to an article that is "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard", hence my raising it here. --John (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Would a 50% reduction work? I think I'll be able to do that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to haggle over numbers. Instead, as we both accept there are too many, why not start to cut out the least essential ones first and see how we go? --John (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@John: did a fair bit of trimming. What do you think now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Good work. --John (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

John, Krimuk, is there more to do here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope not. :D John? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. I can't properly look just now. Can you give me a couple of days? John (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I can look at this properly tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. --John (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the ones that have been dealt with. Well done for doing that. We are down to around 50. --John (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I am working my way through copyediting the article with a view to tidying up fanspeak and further summarising quotations. It is broadly ok and I am confident I can finish this by tonight. --John (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think. --John (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Units Still on course to meet that deadline. What about units of human weight? The article uses pounds, but this isn't right in UK usage. Older British people use stones and pounds, and younger ones use kilos. How should we solve this? --John (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's be consistent in our usage. What's the most acceptable unit, and we'll stick to that? WP:UNITS says that for the UK "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So stones/pounds, with a kg conversion? --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, 185 pounds (84 kg) isn't quite right. I think we would want 13 stone 3 and the kg conversion. A bit tough on Americans who might not know either unit, hence my raising it here. --John (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• 13 stone 3 pounds (84 kg) or 13 stone 3 pounds (84 kg; 185 lb) seem like the choices. I'm not wild about using three units but maybe that's the least bad. --John (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking We shouldn't link inside a quotation. So we can't say, for example, Her next film, an adaptation of the Australian gothic novel The Dressmaker, was described by the director Jocelyn Moorhouse as "Unforgiven with a sewing machine." --John (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you suggest we fix this? Also, I'm not sure I agree with the removal of the "Citizen Kane of awful" quote. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes. --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an idea (it might be stupid) but does Unforgiven "with a sewing machine" go against MoS guidelines? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like the quote. I counter-propose "Her next film, an adaptation of the Australian gothic novel The Dressmaker, was described by the director Jocelyn Moorhouse as being reminiscent of Unforgiven."--John (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

John and Ian Rose could we please wrap this up now? I'd really appreciate it if we could close this before the year ends. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

All done now, John? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. I fixed it. We never use stones as decimal fractions. I think it looks damn clumsy with three units, as I said above, but as you point out that's what the MoS recommends. I'm happy to sign off on this if you are. --John (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I now support. Nice work. --John (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Wish you a very happy new year. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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