Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reese Witherspoon

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 18:02, 30 January 2008.

Reese Witherspoon

[edit]
Check external links

Hi all, this is an FAC nomination for an actress biography. I've been working on it based on the standard of some other actors FAs, with thanks to helpful input from other editors. It's become a GA recently, and I feel the FA criteria is now reasonably met. If you spot any problems, please feel free to leave comment(s) here. I'm often around and I hope we can address the issue(s) as soon as possible. Thanks! PeaceNT (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article is in dire need of a copy-edit from a third party. Just skimming, I see numerous mistakes in grammar, wording, and punctuation throughout. Just a few examples from the lead:
  • "who has established as the highest-paid actress of Hollywood in recent years"; missing "been"?
  • "Her performance received positive reviews, which became a motivation for her to continue an acting career"; it is vague as to what "which" is referring to, the performance or the reviews.
  • "and led to roles in three major movies Overnight Delivery, Pleasantville and Twilight in 1998"; punctuation
  • "Witherspoon appeared in the critically acclaimed Election, which garnered her first Golden Globe nomination"; which garnered her her first GG nom.

It seems to be adequately sourced, but the prose obviously needs work. You could always contact someone at the League of Copyeditors, or perhaps you know of someone not affiliated with the article who can give it a thorough and professional look over. It always helps to have someone who is able to look over the article with a fresh eye. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but fixable (see comments at the end of FAC) A worthy topic but needs to be re-written. The early life part starts out ok. Her "early work" is a massive list written in prose forms. Why is one paragraph 1991, 1996 is the next paragraph, 1999 yet the next paragraph. The awards chart being preceded and succeeded is strange. Those awards are not like political offices or university presidents. You get an award and that's it. It's like Motor Trend Car of the Year. It's not like the award is a term in office or period. The introduction calling her the highest paid actress needs a source. Basically, read every sentence and see if someone could say "prove it". She's American. Nobody in their right mind would ask you to prove it. Highest paid - certainly. A minor thing, Type A Films is actually Type A Films, Inc. It was formed the day after 9-11 (12 September 2001). The references are not the same style, just look at the style of dates. After you have re-done it then have it copyedited. Good luck! Congolese fufu (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Four things:
  • First, the material in the "early work" section has been organized by time sequence. I'm not quite sure about your concerns (is it about the logic or the clarity of this structure?) Anyway, I'll try to make it clear how I came to divide the content into the three paragraphs you mentioned: first paragraph (1991-1994) introduces her earliest roles in movies and a few TV series, the second paragraph (1996-1998) is about her rise as a young actor with leading roles in several major movies and her earliest critical awards (note that she made no appearance in commercials during 2005), and the third paragraph (1999) basically gives information on her critically acclaimed performance in Election and that first golden globe nomination.
  • Second, regarding the succession box, it is used in some other actors FAs too; and there is a guideline which lays down that important awards (like the Oscar, etc) can merit a succession box. You may see that I only include major awards in the table. :)
  • Third, I don't cite sources in the lead section, since it is essentially a summary of the article and contains no new information at all. The sentence about her being the American hight-paid actress in the lead is not sourced, but you can find the relevant references in the "Witherspoon in the media" section. I hope this clarifies the issue.
  • Forth, I agree that consistency makes the citations look better, the dates in the refs are fixed now. Thank you for your suggestion!
Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improved but work on it a bit more before calling in the copy editors. Copy editors won't re-write content extensively. The headings do help. Will try to offer useful suggestions later. An improvement over a few days ago! Congolese fufu (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Aside from the prose issues, there are some other problems:
    • She shouldn't be introduced as "Academy Award-winning" before her profession is mentioned (NPOV) and following some discussion about this in the past, it's probably better to call her an actor, not actress.
    • I don't know whether the last paragraph of the lead section is really necessary. Is she actually widely known for any of the things mentioned there - I don't think so, but I'm not an expert either. To me, this seems marginal for the lead.
    • Throughout the text, simple and uncontroversial statements have two sources, what's that all about?
    • Again, throughout the text, a lot of common words are unnecessarily linked (debut, board, middle-class, ...)
    • All newspapers mentioned have to be in italics.
    • The awards section shouldn't be one long succession box, a proper table would be much better (see Jake_Gyllenhaal#Awards). One succession box for her Oscar should be enough.
    • Why is her law suit against Star magazine mentioned in the separation section, shouldn't it rather be in the media section?
    • Is being one of 100 "Sexiest Women In The World" by FHM really a notable fact for a Hollywood star? And if you mention the Celebrity 100 by Forbes, you should also tells us her ranks.
    • The separation section might need more work than just a copy-edit. Imho, it's too long compared to the rest of the article and it's very poorly written. One short sentence, starting with "On...", after another.

EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've fixed the article to address your concerns: the succession box reduced, italic text used as needed, the lawsuit moved to "media" section, and unnecessary reference removed (disclaimer: I'm sort of a reference freak. But don't worry, I'm still aware of the "cite only where needed" rule though). I've reworded the lead (first and last parapgraph), too. You're right, her charity work is not especially well-known → reworded to "actively involved in children's and women's advocacy organizations" to be more factual. Thank you for reviewing the article. :) PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And about the FHM list (I missed this in the previous post), I think the inclusion of this material should be fine, since it describes the actor's image in the media, which is the point of the section. Also, the magazine is notable itself, so saying she's on their list would not be a trivial mention. Generally, relevant and non-trivial fact can be included. Regards,PeaceNT (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is this: there are a lot of these 'hot lists' (she probably has been on others like Maxim etc, no?) and if you have to fill 100 spots it is almost natural that well-known Hollywood actresses get mentioned, thus this one particular list is just not that noteworthy to me. Also, I'm still curious why half of the sourced statements have double-references? This seems especially redundant with quotes - if you have one reliable source what's more to prove? And one last thing, I think it's problematic to call her "the highest-paid Hollywood actress" in the very first sentence, thereby making this a fundamental description of the person. Unless I'm mistaken this is solely based on a Hollywood Reporter story (which is basically an educated guess?) and only valid for the last year. I don't think it's a good idea to put this in the first sentence. Maybe "one of the highest-paid" or possibly mentioning it further down "the highest paid in 2007"? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, thanks for the explanation (I was confused initially ;)) Well, concerning the FHM's list, two things. First, it is my view a rank on some "hot lists" by popular magazines merits inclusion, an FA should be as comprehensive an article as valid information can be found. When the materials become superfluous we may leave out the less significant info, but that is not the case here, so I guess we must agree to differ. I haven't check Maxim yet, but it would be noteworthy, should she appear on their lists. Second, though it is natural that a well-known movie star is featured in some "top 100 lists", I believe a place among the "sexiest women" is not typical for her, since the on-screen characters for which she is famous are mainly the intellectual, non-attractive feminist type (she was never given a "sexy" role in any movie, and I was actually quite surprised that I found her on this particular list). And regarding the sources, half of the content has two sources for each statement because I don't feel comfortable relying heavily on one single reference. More importantly, though, a number of sentences are the condensed combination of materials collected from different sources, which is why I have to use more than one source for a sentence on occasion. A long ref list is harmless anyway, methinks. About that last thing, I've reworded the lead to "one of the highest-paid Hollywood actresses in recent years" (for I could realize the previous statement was inaccurate). Best regards, PeaceNT (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still have some nitpicks here and there, but the article sufficiently meets the FA criteria now. Just one more thing I just saw today: You need to decide whether to put character names in quotation marks or not. The career section starts out with all her role names in quotes, and then at the end of "Early critical success" that suddenly stops and all her characters are mentioned as simple names. Although I voiced my support already, I hope you will edit this into one consistent style (probably best no quotes, as they might look strange on the real persons she has played). EnemyOfTheState (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quotation marks. Thanks for supporting, and for reading the page so closely. :) PeaceNT (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - quick first look. This article suffers seriously from violations of WP:OVERLINK: don't link plain English words. Only make links that are relevant to the context. Please read the guideline carefully because perhaps a hundred links need removing. Right away in the lead section, there's lead actress and debut to unlink and it just snowballs from there. Here are some of worst offenses I see, just so you know what I'm talking about: sibling, nursing, country, critic, negative reviews, impoverished, Type A, TV movie. And you also repeat links, another violation of the policy. To echo other commenters, in the lead sentence, remove "Academy-award winning" and instead briefly describe what critics most often say about her (provide citations)/what she is best known for. That first sentence would therefore tell her significance right off the bat, as per WP:MOSBIO, and then would lead nicely into the specific film landmarks in the second paragraph. I also agree that using "actor" is not only gender-neutral, but is the more serious term for female thespians; not a must, but it's perfectly correct. We no longer say "sculptress" and "poetess", and though we still do say "actress", "actor" is also used for women. --Melty girl (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've delinked the page a bit. And no problem with the gender-neutral term, either, it's been changed to "actor". Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I know you (and your admirable work) from before. I actually did use the FA you wrote as a model for this article (exemplary FA it is). PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until links are reduced as per WP:OVERLINK. I will be happy to remove my opposition once you truly remove the links that violate this WP policy. This is a style guideline issue that should be taken seriously in FAC as per FA criteria #2. Barely any links were removed -- when I said "perhaps a hundred links need removing," I was not exaggerating. Please read the policy carefully. This otherwise admirable article is oversaturated with unnecessary blue for links to articles that do not provide context to an article about Reese Witherspoon, but instead serve as a user's dictionary. If someone actually needs to look up the words, "model" or "pediatric" in the dictionary, they can do so for themselves; they usually won't need to read the (often weak) Wiki articles about them. Also, links should not be repeated. I know it's fun to create links, but to readers you're hiding the useful links among the overlinks, and it undermines the quality of this article. I just removed five from the lead and 19 from the Early life section so that you can see what I'm talking about. Since there are so many more remaining, I'm going to let you dig in to the rest of the article. I'm happy to discuss specific link questions on the Witherspoon talk page. Sorry to oppose, but I bet I'll be removing my opposition soon. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the necessity of links was subject to my judgement, and apparently I failed to follow the cited guideline. It took me many edits to clean up the links (well, definitely need to use the review button more often). Anyway, all unwanted links have been removed (I hope). Please recheck my edits. Best regards, PeaceNT (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition withdrawn: it looks much better now. I removed two in the last section. (Still haven't had time to give the text a really close read.) --Melty girl (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets FAC criteria in my opinion, sure there is de-linking to do but that's fixable and most of the other things mentioned too. There is also a dedicated editor behind this so I have no doubt that these issues will be repaired soon. Rt. 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't say it's brillant prose but it's not so bad to deny FA. Please consider fixing intro; unless she's had a recent sex change operation, she's an actress. Ph.D. has punctuation. It's not a Ph.D pediatric nurse. She's probably a pediatric nurse who had undergone graduate studies culminating in a Ph.D. U.S. Army also had punctuation. Not all children live with their father when he works overseas. Consider "she lived in Germany while her father was assigned to --, Germany." The receiving good grades is actually 2 sentences or change the wording to keep it one sentence. 2000 km, give the mile equivalent as is customary in WP articles. Use non-breaking space if possible though this article has few figures to do that.

The early work seems to be a list changed to prose form. It's passable but if you can tie in a theme or leave out minor films (leaving that information to the chart at the end) is a possibility, not a requirement. The later work prose is better. Children's Defense Fund, add (CDF) since you use that later.

What happened to the Star lawsuit? Consider summarizing the divorce case better instead of stringing references and a one sentence summary of each source. Maybe...In October 2006, Witherspoon and Phillippe announced that they decided to formally separate after seven years of marriage. The following month, Witherspoon filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. The divorce was granted on October 5, 2007. The couple had no prenuptial agreement (delete this unless you can cite what assets Phillippe got, alimony is not the same as assets....and Phillippe would customarily be entitled to half of Witherspoon's assets by California law,[102][103]). Witherspoon opposed the granting of spousal support which was not contested by Phillippe. Witherspoon told Elle magazine that it was "a difficult and frightening experience" for her.[106]

I am trying to leave comments for fixing, not simply criticism. A FA star is within reach! Congolese fufu (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. I've fixed the punctuations, several phrases, and combined sentences in the personal life section as suggested. Just some minor disagreement: I didn't change the order of the sentences, for it would be confusing if the article said "The divorce was granted on October 5, 2007." before "Witherspoon told Elle magazine..." (it would be misleading what happened first). I believe a chronological sequence would be best for describing event proceedings. I'd also insist on using "actor" in the first lead sentence, since a neutral-gender word used when introducing an occupation is preferable. (Sort of conflicted assessments here, there're two reviewers above who advised me to replace "actress" with "actor" ;)) The Star magazine lawsuit has been moved to the "In the media" section. About that "living in Germany" part, I didn't really get what you meant. She spent her childhood for four years in Germany because her father was working there. (pls take it literally, not generally: her father's military duty was the reason for her residence at that foreign country. That's all.)
And thanks much for leaving kind comments, criticism is greatly appreciated, too. I'm seeking constructive remarks here to better the article. The more criticism the better! PeaceNT (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:MOSNUM and WP:NBSP; ... a little South African girl who must cross 1,24 miles of the Kalahari ... 1,24 is incorrect notation, there should be a non-breaking hard space, and there should be a conversion. Sample only. I looked in and found easily spottable ce issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—The prose needs polishing before promotion. Here are random samples.
    • "Scotland-born John Witherspoon"—ScottISH-born?
    • US, then spelt out, then US. Spell out first, then abbreviate? Whatever, but be consistent.
    • 1,24? Um ... that's not equivalent to 2000 km, by the way.
    • the Young Artist Award "Best Youth Actress co-star"—can we lose the quotes and make it: the Young Artist Award for Best Youth Actress Co-star?
    • believed Witherspoon was "going to be an enormous movie star"—fat? How much did she weigh? There are plenty of direct quotes, so consider paraphrasing this one to avoid the issue.
    • "This same year, she co-starred with"—Unidiomatic: use "In the same ...".
    • pulls it off."—See MOS on logical punctuation ending quotations (period last if it starts within a WP sentence). Most, not all, are correct.
  • 'She's from Beverly Hills ...—MOS insists on double quotes.
  • "US$35 million"—MOS says in US-related articles, just the dollar sign please. And it's repeated!
  • "Reese Witherspoon being interviewed at"—"in interview at" would be nicer. Tony (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed most, except the double quote. Could you be more specific, I checked the MOS and it said "Quotations are enclosed within "double quotes". Quotations within quotations are enclosed within 'single quotes'."? Thank you, - PeaceNT (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has only 3 pictures, which might be a bit low for an FA of this size. Nergaal (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that more pictures will help illustrate the subject better, but finding more is not a simple work, as I'd like to avoid fair-use images. There were a few more free pictures at commons last time I checked, but they were small in size and rather distant. The article originally had only two images, and it took me quite a while to find the third free one. Still looking for more pictures, though I cannot promise you anything. Still, I undertand the concerns. Thanks and best regards,- PeaceNT (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support. I did a minor copyedit pass and I'm close to support on this; I just have a couple of questions.
    • I only noticed one really negative comment about Witherspoon's acting, and a whole lot of positive quotations. Is this representative? Isn't there any well-known critic who disliked some of here earlier movies? You don't have to dredge up something negative just to satisfy me on this; if you can assure me that you've looked through the reviews and these are representative quotes, that's good enough.
    • I agree that the succession box for the award just looks weird. I wouldn't withhold support for this, but if I were you I'd drop it.
    • Who's Jennifer Simpson? She's mentioned as Witherspoon's partner in a film project. A half-sentence of context would be nice if you have it: e.g. "which she will produce under the Type A banner, partnering with Jennifer Simpson, an established producer she met while working on Legally Blonde". I just made that up, but I hope you see what I'm suggesting. If you don't have anything on her I'd suggest changing "partner" to "business partner"; without that it is too easy to read as "significant other".
-- Mike Christie (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the sentence concerning Jennifer Simpson, you got it half right (or nearly right :)) — she is a co-producer of Legally Blonde 2, I hope this bit of info is sufficient. Regarding the reviews, I think they are quite representative of the more major movies, which are mostly successful (with the exception of Rendition, of course); minor (or early) movies got only unenthusiastic reviews, and they weren't notorious enough to receive complaints from critics. ;) The succession box, as I notice, is used in some FAs, like Angelina Jolie. Also, according to this guideline, an important award like the Oscar can merit a succession box, so I hope that the use here is fine, too. Thanks for your comments, and also for your help with copyediting. Pls let me know if you have further concerns. Cheers, - PeaceNT (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns; I've switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I made some straightforward copyedit changes directly in the article. It still needs some prose work; examples follow.
    • 'the' is awkward and not needed before the names of publications such as Variety magazine, USA Today, Interview magazine, and Entertainment Tonight.
    • Likewise, 'the' is not needed before 'critics' ("well received by critics" and "given negative reviews by critics" are better).
    • Two consecutive sentences in the lead begin with the same verbiage: "2001 saw her", "2003 saw her".
    • "She also appeared as the leading actress in the thriller and black comedy Freeway" - she didn't appear as the lead actress; she was the lead actress, or she appeared in the lead role.
    • "In early 2005, Witherspoon starred alongside Mark Ruffalo in the romantic comedy Just Like Heaven; she played Elizabeth Masterson, a dedicated San Francisco doctor who is involved in a car accident and becomes a spirit, her spirit returns to her old apartment and she later finds true love there." - this sentence needs a total rewrite.
    • "The movie was subject to mostly negative criticism" - criticism is inherently negative, and the movie wasn't 'subject to' it but rather earned it, received it, etc.
    • "she clarified the misconception" - she characterized it as a misconception, or clarified the name's origin.
    • "'focuses on domestic violence" - probably should clarify with 'prevention of'.
    • "In 2006, Star ran a false story on Witherspoon's third pregnancy" - despite 'false story', this still leaves open the implication that she had a third pregnancy.
    • In early 2008, a study conducted by E-Poll Market Research revealed that Witherspoon was the most likable female celebrity of 2007." - not revealed (it wasn't hidden); perhaps concluded. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your assistance in copyediting. :) I've made appropriate changes to address the issues you mentioned (pls check them if possible), except that I still think newspaper should generally have names with "the", so the removal of this article wouldn't be necessary. Best regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you're absolutely correct, thanks for the explanation. i used to think it's okay put "the" in front of every publisher name. (Was deathly mistaken, of course, kicking myself really hard here.) Glad to learn something new everyday. Anyway, I've checked the page to make sure I left out all the unwanted superfulous "the". Thanks again! - PeaceNT (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, glad we got that cleared up. Just one other issue: the way some quotations are worked into sentences is a bit off. Examples:
  • Academy Award - winning director Alexander Payne praised her, "She's got...
  • This pregnancy was not a hindrance to her work, as Witherspoon believed the gestation had in fact helped her portrayal of Sharp’s character, "I love
  • Witherspoon expressed her passion for the movie, "I really like
  • She also spoke about June Carter Cash, stating that she believed Carter Cash was a woman ahead of her time, "I think
  • However, when asked about the company by Interview magazine, she clarified the name's origin, "... people think
When the quotation itself isn't part of the basic structure of the sentence, it should be set off with a colon rather than a comma. Maralia (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Reese_Witherspoon&oldid=1078805353"