Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scarlett Johansson/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2017 [1].

---

Scarlett Johansson

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson has made quite a name for herself from beginning acting from the age of seven to becoming one of Hollywood's biggest stars. She is also quite often in the lists of sexiest women in the world, which contributes significantly to her public image. I saw some of her films not long ago and liked her in them.

Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews, and do not have anything controversial so I think they should be okay for use here. I also feel the article might have many quotes, but I believe they are important and add to the article and her personality. Should someone object to it, I will do my best to address their concerns. Thanks to anyone and everyone for taking the time. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from regarding the sources, but there is documentation regarding fabricated quotes and interviews for at least one of them, haven't checked others. Strongly suggest you reconsider that approach, and only include what can be reliably sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed the Daily Mail source, the other one is IndieLondon, not sure how you feel about it. Will go through the sources again tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed, but only Scarlett Johansson.jpg currently has alt text. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, added.

• Scarlett Johansson 2003.jpg (At the premiere of Girl with a Pearl Earring) still seems to lack alt text. Moisejp (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It does not. Pls look again and you'll find the alt text.

• My apologies. When I was skimming I mistook where the end of the caption ended. Great, images all look good! Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Moise

Resolved comments

Hi FrB.TG. Comments on what I've read so far: Lead: "She voiced an intelligent computer operating system in the 2013 comedy-drama Her and played an alien in the 2013 science fiction film Under the Skin and a woman with psychokinetic abilities in the 2014 science fiction action Lucy." Sentence feels a little long and has two instances of "and" (even though the second one doesn't introduce a new clause so is still grammatically correct). Maybe try to break the sentence up somehow, or change the second "and" to "as well as", or at the very least put a comma after Her. Third and fourth paragraphs have two sentences in a row starting with "She". Feels a bit repetitive, especially in the third paragraph. Maybe if you broke up the sentence I quoted above into two sentences, it would solve both issues in the third paragraph. Films with Woody Allen: "When Allen offered Johansson the part, she accepted it on a condition that he change her role's nationality." Would be nice to know more about this. Thanks for adding the precision about what nationalities they were. I was hoping to also know the reason why she preferred playing an American (maybe she wasn't comfortable with a British accent?) and was going to add it myself, but when I looked in the source I did't find anything about Johansson requesting the change. Is it possible the information is in a different source? Moisejp (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC) This is what the "Why I love London" source says, "Scarlett Johansson replaced Kate Winslet shortly before shooting began, a switch that required the character to change nationality. 'It was not a problem,' Allen says. 'It took about an hour.'" Yes, it does say that there was a "required" change in nationality, but not that Johansson wasn't willing to take the part if the nationality wasn't changed. One could imagine from what is written in the source that perhaps it was Allen that felt the nationality change was better. It feels like a bit of a jump to me. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC) This source (GamesRadar) [[2]] contains the line "So I had to recast and it turned out I could cast an American so I went down the list and saw Scarlett’s name" which may suggest a different sequence of events for Scarlett's character becoming American. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Reworded to be more faithful to the source. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC) I'll finish reviewing the rest soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks, Moisejp. I have rearranged the lead a bit. Hopefully it reads better now. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Marvel Cinematic Universe: "The film gained mainly favorable reviews, and Anne Billson praised Johansson for bringing depth to a rather uninteresting character that it made one wish to watch her story than Damon's." The end of the sentence (from "that it made..." onwards) doesn't seem to quite fit grammatically. Moisejp (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC) It's too much detail anyway. Removed that part. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC) I got distracted by a couple of other reviews, but will continue this one very soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Music career: "The album was named the "23rd best album of 2008" by NME and peaked at number on the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart and number 126 on Billboard 200." The Heatseekers position is missing from the sentence, and I looked in ref #175 to try to add it, but I could only find the Top 200 information in it. Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Removed. Transition to adult roles: "Webber found the actress too modern, but thought it was a positive attribute and that hiding the intelligent girl in her for the part would work." I find this sentence quite confusing. Johansson was "too" modern but this was a good thing—that's already contradictory. And it's not clear to me what "hiding the intelligent girl in her for the part would work" means. Is it possible to clarify this sentence? Moisejp (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Johansson is supposed to play a 17th century character in the film. When Webber met with Johansson he thought she was too modern to play the character, but he was instead fascinated with her modernness. In the source's words, When he first met Johansson, who was 17 at the time, she was en route to a New York Knicks game -- a far cry from the 17th century. But her very modernness fascinated Webber. "I realized that what would work was to take this intelligent, zippy girl and repress all that. Is there a better way to summarize it? (Although I am beginning to wonder if it should at all be mentioned in the article). – FrB.TG (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Sorry, FrB.TG, I don't have any immediate ideas. It's tricky. I hope it doesn't sound like a cop-out, but with so many good details throughout the article—especially if you're unsure whether this detail belongs—it could be worthwhile to remove. Moisejp (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Woody Allen: "She also appeared in Brian De Palma's The Black Dahlia, a film noir shot in Los Angeles and Bulgaria. Johansson later said she was a fan of De Palma and had wanted to work with him on the film, but thought that she was "physically wrong" for the part.[69] CNN noted, "[Johansson] takes to the pulpy period atmosphere as if it were oxygen," and Anne Billson of The Daily Telegraph found her miscast in her part." Johansson says she miscast in a way, Billson says also she was miscast. It could be a good idea to join these two in the prose. Moisejp (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Marvel: "In November 2011, Johansson was supposed to make her directorial debut in an adaption of Truman Capote's novel, Summer Crossing, with the screenplay by playwright Tristine Skyler." Did she end up making it or not, and if she didn't, why not? Moisejp (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC) The last time I read about it was in a 2015 article, which says that it is still in the making. I guess it is one of those films that never come to fruition. Should I shift it to Upcoming projects or just remove and perhaps add it back when the principal photography for the film begins? If you can write it in a way that leaves it open-ended but still true to the actual sources you have, then putting it in Upcoming projects could work. Otherwise you could consider removing it. Moisejp (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC) "Johansson was intimidated by the role's complexity, and considered her recording sessions for the role challenging but liberating. "You're liberated from your body." " Can you find a synonym for "liberating" to avoid repetition? Moisejp (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC) If it was the user John, he would have asked to remove the quote, since the intimidated part summarizes the quote. Music career: (I know some of these sections are appearing twice, but my first read-through of the article was a little scattered, and now I'm trying to go through each section more deliberately.) "Reviews of the album were mixed, or average." I'm not sure the exact distinction being made between "mixed" and "average". Do you need both words? Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC) "Johansson was issued a cease and desist order from the lead singer of the Los Angeles-based rock band the Singles, demanding her to stop using their name." Do you have information about how that situation ended, and whether Johansson's band end up changing their name? No, unfortunately not. Newspapers or tabloids haven't really added further about it. Just confirming, but should "Universal fanfare" be "Universal Fanfare"? Moisejp (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Okay, I think those are all my comments. I have also made several copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for both the comments and the copyedits. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC) All right, this article is good to go in my books. If you can just do something about the info on her directorial debut, as discussed above, that would be awesome. Moisejp (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC) That's great. I have removed the directorial part for now, and will consider adding it back when/if the principal photography begins. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments

*For this sentence (Johansson shifted to adult roles with her performances in Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) and Lost in Translation (2003), for which she won a BAFTA Award for Best Actress.), would it be better to remove the two (2003) parenthesis and move the year to the following “Johansson shifted to adult roles in 2003 with her performances…”? Just providing a suggestion to avoid the repetitions of 2003 in the same sentence. I am not certain about the “Also in 2010” transition in the lead’s third paragraph. Maybe revise it to something like “Also in the same year” or “In the same year”. Would there be a way to reword this sentence (The highest-grossing actress of 2016, she is also, as of May 2017, the highest-grossing actress of all time in North America.) without repeating “highest-grossing” twice? Just seems repetitive here. This is more of a clarification question but is there a reason why ('introducing' credit on this film) has single quotation marks (i.e. ‘.’) as opposed to double quotation marks (i.e. “.”). In the phrase (Made on a paltry budget of $4 million), I am not sure if the word “paltry” is necessary. I would let the numbers speak for themselves. Could you possibly revise the following sentence (Aspiring to appear on Broadway since her childhood, Johansson made her debut on Broadway in a 2010 revival of the drama A View from the Bridge, written by Arthur Miller.) to avoid the repetition of the word “Broadway”? Entertainment Weekly was linked multiple times in the body of the article. I think that this “and speak in English accent” should be revised to this (and speak in an English accent). For this part (while taking note of her first fully nude role. For the role,) I would avoid the repetition of the word “role” in such close proximity. In this part (her lips, green eyes, and voice are among her trademarks), who considers these her trademarks? I am just curious about the attribution for this. In this phrase (Often sexually compared to that of Marilyn Monroe,), is the “sexually” part needed in “sexually compared”? Something about it sounds a little off to me. I understand the intended meaning, but I am still not quite so sure about it. I am not sure about the immediate value of the second paragraph of “Public image” section. It seems rather repetitive to just list her placement on lists of the “sexiest celebrity”. It is important information to include as she is known as a sex symbol, but I am curious if this could be cut down further. I know it is somewhat repetitive to list down those lists, and I have seen some strong opposition from a certain user, but I think they are important, as they are, like, the awards she receive for her films. Regardless, I have trimmed it a little. Thank you for addressing this. I would not compare her appearances on these lists to her awards from fils as they are completely separate things. I am still not entirely convinced of the value of the paragraph, but I understand your point, and will leave this up to future, more experienced reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Would the second paragraph of the “Philanthropy” subsection be better suited for the final paragraph in the “Endorsements” subsection. It seems a little odd to have information in one subsection about how she resigned from company due to conflicting endorsements and then place the full reasonings behind it in a later subsection. Simply removed that part from Endorsement as I think it belongs more in Philanthropy. In this sentence (Her endeavors included appearances in Iowa during January 2008, where her efforts were targeted at younger voters; an appearance at Cornell College; and a speaking engagement at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota on Super Tuesday, 2008.), all instances of the semicolon should be a comma. For this part (for The Black Eyed Peas frontman will.i.am's song), I do not know why it is necessary to bring up The Black Eyed Peas if they were not a part of the song or video? I think the descriptive phrase “singer” or “rapper” would suffice here. Do you think it is notable/relevant enough to include her appearance on SNL as Ivanka Trump in the skit “Complicit” as that got some media attention after it aired. I think it's enough to mention her 2017 appearance. Mentioning also that would be somewhat overkill. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks, Aoba. Some really great points. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For the "her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks" aspect, I would think that WP:In-text attribution would not be appropriate if there are multiple or various sources stating this. In-text attribution could make it seem like it's just according to that one person or media outlet. But I see that this has been resolved by adding "the media" in front of "considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Resolved comments

This is pretty formidable, with 290-odd citations, so I'm doing it in stages. First column: Well, she has been active since 1994, has starred in dozens of films, released two albums and done other works, so it would naturally be a little large. Ref 7: The publisher should be rendered as E!News, with the wikilink Ref 19: What makes this a high quality, reliable source? It's self-published, and reads rather like a fan piece. Also, the book is unpaginated, so "pp. 5" doesn't make sense as a reference point. Ref 26: The Redford quote is clearly on p. 12, so why the open page range? Ref 36: Again, the page reference should be precise, not to an open-ended range Ref 70: The link seems to go to an entirely different website, unrelated to Johansson More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks, Brian. I have addressed your concerns and look forward to the rest. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Second column: Ref 98: Source has a differently-worded headline Ref 100: Authorname is in wrong format – should be surname first Ref 111: Link goes to an entirely different headline – is this the intended source? Ref 119: The E! issue – see note re ref 7, above Ref 164: Authorname in wrong format. 3rd col to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC) All adjusted, thanks. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Third column: Ref 186: Why is this source reliable ("Pitchfork")? Also, authorname format error Replaced. Ref 190: I'm sure that "Independent.ie" isn't part of the title Ref 199: who is the publisher here? "On The Red Carpet" doesn't seem to be an organisation – it looks to me as though "ABC Eyewitness News" is the probable publisher Ref 228: Authorname format Ref 236: The word is "Ever", not "Eve" Ref 239: Why is this source reliable ("PopSugar")? For some reason the site stops me from scrolling to the foot to check on its credentials. I think I have seen it being used in another FA (can't remember which), but I have replaced it. Ref 240: Authorname format Ref 244: Why is this source reliable ("Aid still Required")? Johansson supports the organization, and the source is used to cite that. Can't think of a better source than the one from the organization itself. And that's it, done. It would be helpful, if you delete or replace a source, if you would add a brief note. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for such a thorough review of sources. I have left replies under the comments where necessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Resolved comments

I expect to have the usual stack of nitpicks, and begin construction with the following: I think I've suggested to you in previous articles that there be more facts about what the subject is best known for in the lede paragraph, given what the reader is likely to see if they google. I do so again. "she was married twice," As she lives, I might say "she has been married twice". "comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family (from Poland and Belarus)." I think "Ashkenazic" is more commonly used when an adjective. Also, I might say the family is "of Polish and Belarusian descent" if the connection is not recent (say post World War II), in which case you don't need the parens. I also prefer it that way (and is now changed back to that), but there was a user that thought otherwise. "She was devastated when a talent agent signed up her brother instead of her. Determined, she eventually decided to become an actress anyway." I would cut "up" as unneeded and "eventually" (a 7-year-old hasn't experienced "eventually") "and made her first stage appearance in the Off Broadway play Sophistry opposite Ethan Hawke,[19] in which she had only two lines.[18]" I take "opposite" to mean leading actor (or actress) opposite the leading actress (or actor), if you know what I mean. Two lines is not a leading part, and given the age difference ... I might substitute "with" for "opposite".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you. I have addressed these, and look forward to more. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Her organizing a benefit for the hurricane victims, see here, seems worth a mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Absolutely, but I’d prefer to wait until November 6. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC) "Also that year, Johansson underwent tonsillectomy," likely should be an "a" prior to tonsillectomy "The Nanny Diaries, in which she had the role of a college graduate working as a nanny alongside Chris Evans and Laura Linney. " If the latter two were not also nannies, I would move the "alongside ..." clause to after "Diaries," "Some critics and Broadway actors saw her as undeserving of the award.[100]" Isn't that true of most awards? "did not look a lot like Leigh" did not look much like Leigh? " Following an FBI investigation, Christopher Chaney was arrested, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison."Unless he's notable in some other way, I would avoid naming the perp. Why give him publicity? "for using her name in the novel The First Thing We Look At, by Gregoire Delacourt. The book featured a character who looked like Johannson, and was mistaken for her, although she herself was not a character in the novel." This is a bit confusing. Looks like her, name's like her's . That's it...--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC) I believe I have now addressed these as well. Thanks for the review. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Interesting piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Flyer22 Reborn

Resolved comments

Comment: Regarding the award bit, I don't think it's true that, for most awards, some critics are going to consider the actor undeserving of it. For one, how are we defining "critics"? If we mean professional critics, then I stand by my comment. And it's certainly not the case that actors usually respond to such criticism. Johansson took the time to respond in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC) I see your point but then US Weekly is not much of a strong source to be used in an FA/C. Reviewers have previously discouraged its usage in previous FLCs and FACs. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) As a source, Us Weekly is not much different than People or Rolling Stone, which are very much allowed. We had to conduct an RfC just to keep editors (well, mainly one) from removing People magazine. Us Weekly is one of the sources that celebrities trust and it passes WP:Reliable sources. We might need to conduct an RfC on it as well. Either way, there are other reliable sources that cover the "Johansson didn't deserve the award" matter, like this The Hollywood Reporter source or the source she gave the interview to -- broadwayworld.com. Wehwalt, did you mean to remove our comments? If so, why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC) No, sorry, must have gotten caught up in the edit somehow. Please feel free to restore. On the question of criticism, I don't think the criticism of the award is important but it's not something I care about greatly. My comments are usually advice. (Wehwalt)--08:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Query resolved at the article's talk page. Thanks for the heading add; I thought about doing that, but I had already responded to a section higher up and my comments aren't really reviews. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC) You can’t review it even if you want to ;-) cuz you’re one of the major contributors of the article. I created the header to separate your comment from Wehwalt’s although it was related to his. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Major, you say? Nah. I just tended to some things in the article here and there. You did all the work. LOL. But I know what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC) However it was done, it was worth the doing, judging by the result.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Regarding this removal per Sarastro1's comments below, I might have kept the Sean Penn mention since the source states that the relationship was highly publicized and documents Johansson commenting on the media attention it received having been an adjustment for her. But then again, it was not on a Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow level. By this, I mean that although Paltrow similarly mentioned having had to deal with her relationship with Pitt being high-profile, Penn and Johansson didn't date long and there was no engagement. Pitt and Paltrow dated for a few years, there was an engagement, which Paltrow said was called off because she did not want kids she was not ready for marriage, and Paltrow noted that the Pitt relationship taught her the need for public discretion about her romantic life. So I understand the rationale behind removing the Penn piece. As for the length of the Public image section, it's fine, in my opinion. Johansson's appearance is a significant part of her public image; so it makes sense that the section has two paragraphs devoted to that. But I would not have mentioned all of the magazine listings currently included. I would have summarized the matter by stating that she has been featured on various "hottest" and "most beautiful woman" lists, or something like that, and retained the "She is the only woman to be named 'Sexiest Woman Alive' twice by Esquire (2006 and 2013)" due to its notability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I also read the Penn part in the source that it was highly publicized. However, what prompted me to remove it that it was brief and a source stated that it might have been a rumored relationship, one that she never admitted to be in. This is what she has said about Penn, "We spent time together, yeah... I never put a title on it, really, but we were seeing each other." I believe the publicity might have been because of their age difference. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks for explaining. I saw that the source states "alleged romance with Sean Penn," but Johansson stating "I never put a title on it, really, but we were seeing each other" and the source stating "and though they are no longer seeing each other, Johansson said they are friends" confirms to me that they were dating. She wasn't speaking in terms of simply hanging out as friends. They were dating, but she didn't put a name on it. Afterward, they remained friends. This People source also states that she dated Penn and that it was high-profile. You might be right that it was high-profile because of the age difference. Many people were probably intrigued and/or shocked by the age difference, similar to Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. Anyway, if it wasn't clear before, I don't view your removal of that text as a big issue. I just wanted to comment on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Furthermore, the relationship is not currently mentioned in the Sean Penn article either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Your comment is very much appreciated. I am glad that you do it; it makes me recheck things that I may or may not be right about. On another note, I don't understand how you add your well-detailed thoughts, and revert five-six vandals in the meanwhile. :D (Keep it up!) FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC) WP:STiki makes it easy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Until a few minutes ago, I didn't notice that the sex symbol aspect was removed from the lead, but that's a significant aspect of her public image and I don't see any valid reason to exclude it from the lead. It makes sense to exclude it from the lead in the case of Jennifer Lawrence. The difference is that, when comparing Lawrence to Johansson, Johansson is substantially better known for her looks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC) And if one needs examples where we include "sex symbol" or "physical appearance" material in the lead of celebrity articles, Marilyn Monroe and Angelina Jolie are two featured article examples. Granted, a lot of fuss has been made over their appearances and the impact their appearances had on society; so, yeah, not mentioning that aspect in the leads of their Wikipedia articles would have been a big oversight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks for this. I tweaked it for flow here and here. The final paragraph is really about her public image and personal life. Basically, the world's interest in her as a public figure (which includes her image and interest in her personal life). I think that, like the Angelina Jolie article, the public image stuff should come before the personal life stuff in the lead, although (for both articles) the Public image section is after that lower in the article. Before I tweaked the final paragraph, it began with the public image stuff, then went to the personal life stuff, and jumped right back to the public image stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

Resolved comments

*"She was devastated when a talent agent signed one of her brothers ..." - I'm guessing you can't be any be more specific with her age here? Are you sure she was seven or under though, as she is presented as seven in the next sentence. People outside of the Americas will likely never have heard of Wonder Bread. Maybe you should wikilink it? Up to you. We are not supposed to wiki-link inside a quotation, per WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point. "and she hit her head and injured herself"- this raises questions of how this happened and how badly injured she was. Well, in the source, Johansson has only said that she was bruised and hit her head. "to mostly poor reviews" - from the prose it's not clear if you're referring to the film of specifically Scarlett's performance. If you're referring to her performance, perhaps add some context about why it was considered poor. I've been reading 64th Tony Awards#Summary of awards. Perhaps we could clarify that criticism of Scarlett's award was not limited to her, but rather was part of an overall criticism of Hollywood recipients? "Johansson was paid $17.5 million" - this addition is nice, but it raises more questions than it answers. Why is this the first mention of her payment? Is this a particularly large sum for her compared to her previous roles? There's nothing to compare this amount to. The source does not give info of that sort. I just added it as I thought this is a large sum for an actress. However, it is not confirmed and sources say it might be a rumor. In this case, I think it is best to remove it, which I have. "Johansson was issued a cease and desist order" - Is there any follow up on this? Did she 'cease and desist'? No, unfortunately not, per my response above to Moisejp. "She created some controversy when she appeared nude" - The source doesn't appear to back this up, rather it just backs up that the cover-shoot occurred. And why did this cause controversy? Just from up-tight conservatives who are opposed to nudity full stop or were there other reasons? This would be of interest. "Too Many Women, working against breast cancer," - this is confusing. I think it would be better if you specified what Too Many Women does in brackets, assuming that 'working against breast cancer' is the explanation of what they do. I'm really impressed with the amount of work that has gone into this. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for that. I have replied where necessary otherwise I have just gone ahead. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy to support this. Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

Coordinator comments: Just a few queries from me before we think about promotion. I'm just thinking out loud here, and noting some issues that regularly come up in biographies of actors. First, I notice instances of the "with [noun] [verb]ing" construction which are best avoided: "with critics deeming it melodramatic, unoriginal and sexist", "with Hartnett citing their busy lives as the reason for their split" and "with proceeds going to the President's re-election campaign". The sections on her singing career and public image seem a little long; I'm not sure her music career warrants such a long section and the latter section has a whole list of "she was X's sexiest woman in XXXX" which seems too much (can we not just say something like she regularly features highly in these polls?). There are often complaints when articles reach the main page if there is undue emphasis on sex appeal. Re the music section, she has a discography page so you would expect it to consist of a few paras; regardless, I have reduced it a bit. I have also trimmed the public image section. Similarly, I wonder if we need to list every relationship that she has been in, and I think we could cut parts of that section. For example, we currently have "Johansson began a relationship with Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds in 2007,[194] and in May 2008, it was reported that they were engaged.[195] In September 2008, the couple married in a quiet ceremony near Tofino, British Columbia. They purchased a $2.8 million home together near Los Angeles.[196] In December 2010, the couple announced their separation; their divorce was finalized in July 2011." I would imagine some of this could be trimmed and we could summarise the whole relationship in about two sentences. Yeah, I agree. I have removed some of her brief or rumored relationships and the house bit. Finally, I notice that there is no "overview" section of her career or comments on her acting style/ability. These are not always possible, but it is always a question worth asking. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC) There is not a specific section dedicated to it, but there are a few quotes from her (""Unfortunately, because it's adults..", "acting, at its heart, is the ability to manipulate your own emotions" and the one in the public image section) about how she chooses roles and some sources giving an overview(-esque) of her career (e.g. the Vulture source discussing her onscreen romance with older costars and the Anne Billson one). Regarding her acting ability, I have left it on the reviews of her films. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Before we promote, I wonder if John or Corinne could have a last look at the prose and see if we are good to go from a 1a viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from John

I had a preliminary look. It's a nice article, almost ready to go. Few too many quotes and I'm sure I saw an "it was revealed" in there. I'll have a better look in the next days. --John (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@John: From a Ctrl+F search, it appears that there is one instance of "it was revealed" in paragraph 3 of Personal life. I haven't changed it yet as I don't know the optimal replacement, but feel free to change it as you please. I'm sure you didn't need me to find it, but I agree that it's not quite encyclopedic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have taken out the revealed part (which was there before I expanded the article and somehow missed it) and have summarized a small number of quotes. FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC) John just a gentle reminder. FrB.TG (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

John, sorry to be such a pain in the arse. I understand you might be busy but when you get time, it would be really great if you could continue your review if you have more to add. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, I apologise for having been too busy to look at this over the past days. I will look at it tonight before I go to bed. --John (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Section by section:

Lead

• Her achievements include being among the world's highest-paid actresses from 2014 to 2016: the link is a bit eggy, isn't it?
• Off-Broadway is usually hyphenated, I think.
• She was nominated for Golden Globe Awards for these films feels like it needs a number in front of "Golden".
• the 2013 comedy-drama Her; do we need that hyphen? --John (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

All done. FrB.TG

Thank you. I took the liberty of signing for you. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Early life

• Johansson's mother, Melanie Sloan, a producer, comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family of Polish Jewish and Belarusian Jewish descent whose family surname was originally "Szlamberg". Having three "Jewish"s in quick succession makes this a jangly sentence. Some creative piping maybe, if we really need all three links. Is her ethnic heritage really worthy of such detailed discussion?
• Growing up, her family had limited financial means. Almost everybody in the world can say this. Do we mean she was poor? What do the sources say?
• She was particularly fond of musical theater, describing herself as "one of those jazz-hands kids". (quote no 1) I am deeply unsatisfied by this quote. What does this even mean?
• I always had the chance to do whatever I wanted to do, my parents were very open about that [...] Acting has been a passion of mine. I wanted to be in musicals as a kid, and took tap dance, so for me it's a dream come true, my childhood was filled with things that I loved to do, and also very normal things: I lived in New York, I have a family life and went to a regular school. If anything, I look back and think, 'Wow, I did a lot of things that a lot of people don't get to do in their lifetime'. (quote no 2) There's good stuff here but why is it a pull quote? Is this a quote that people often refer to her by? I don't see why this can't be summarised and/or shortened.

I have paraphrased most of it but have retained a small part of it, which I think is better in her own words.

• Determined, she decided to become an actress anyway. I don't like this. I think I'd recast this and the previous one into one sentence.
• She remembers being on the set of the film, recalling, "for some reason, I just knew what to do, instinctively. It was like, I don't know ... fate." (quote no 3) I think this can happily be summarised too. Remember, there is nothing to stop the vital parts of a quote being shunted into a reference or a footnote, for those who really need to read every word. All of these quotes so far are pretty mundane and probably apply to a great many actors. We just need an encyclopedic gist, not chapter and verse. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Early roles (1996–2002)

• "Unfortunately, because it's adults writing these scripts, it's tough [for young actors to find realistic roles]. The problem is adults portray kids like mall rats and not seriously ... Kids and teenagers just aren't being portrayed with any real depth." —Johansson on finding good roles as a teenager (quote no 4) Again, this is a great and telling quote, but I don't think it needs to be quoted in full and I don't think it needs to be a pull quote.
• Quotes no 4-8 are what seem to me like well-chosen quotes from reviewers and I am fine with them. I particularly liked On Johansson's maturity, Redford described her as "13 going on 30". (quote no 7)
• Nominated for the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Most Promising Actress for the film, Johansson believed that it "changed things for me in a lot of ways [...] I went through this realization that acting, at its heart, is the ability to manipulate your own emotions." (quote no 9) In this case I don't think the quote adds anything. It can best be summarised. I also don't like the sentence structure, I would recast that.
• Quotes 10 and 11 are fine with me. It's getting late here. I may have one more section in me tonight. In any case I'll try to finish up by this time tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Transition to adult roles (2003–2004)

• Comedy-drama again. Is this a recognised term? With or without the hyphen? I know we have an article on it, but it isn't a very good article. I genuinely don't know here.

Although certainly not the best, our article hyphenates it as does this.

• I think the whole first para could be reorganised. No issue with Ebert's quote (no 10) nor no 11 from Entertainment Weekly.
• Webber interviewed 150 girls before Johansson was cast for the part. could read as patronising or even sexist. These were adult women, albeit young. They wouldn't be interviewing guys for a female role; why state the gender at all? Just say "150 young actors".
• He felt the actress "just stood out. She had something distinctive about her. (quote no 12) seems fluffy and inessential.
• Quotes no 13 and 14 are ok, I suppose. We don't need "similarly" though. They aren't that similar.
• Johansson had five releases in 2004, three of which—the teen heist film The Perfect Score, the drama A Love Song for Bobby Long, and the drama A Good Woman, adapted from Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan—were critical and commercial failures. is good material but too long and meandering for a sentence.
• Opined See WP:SAID. "Wrote" is fine.
• Johansson voiced the role of Princess Mindy, the daughter of King Neptune Do we need "the role of"?
• She agreed to do the film because of her love for cartoons and the animated series The Ren & Stimpy Show (1991–1995). Awkward sentence. Surely The Ren & Stimpy Show is a cartoon? And do we need the dates?
• ...who is nearly half his age... is clumsy and ambiguous. "much younger" would be fine I think.
• Fine with quotes 15 and 16. --John (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done most of these things except where I have noted otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Films with Woody Allen (2005–2009)

• In Johansson and Rhys Meyers The New York Times saw some of the best acting in an Allen film in a long time, and Mick LaSalle, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, said that Johansson "is a powerhouse from the word go", with a performance that "borders on astonishing". The sentence structure is off-putting; I had to read this twice to parse it. Ok with quote no 17 (I'll keep the same numbering scheme for simplicity, even though I know you have now removed some.)
• The film received mixed reviews and grossed $162,949,164 against a $126 million budget. I'd be inclined to round the first number to $163 million.
• Ebert was critical of the film, but found Johansson "lovely as always", and Mick LaSalle opined that she "brings deftness and freshness" to her part. Not sure we need the first quote (no 18); neutral on the second (19).
• Johansson later said she was a fan of De Palma and had wanted to work with him on the film. Nonetheless, she thought that she was "physically wrong" for the part, and Anne Billson of The Daily Telegraph likewise found her miscast. I'm not a fan of "Nonetheless", and I don't think the quote (no 20) is merited. I think these two sentences could be rewritten into one.
• CNN noted that she "takes to the pulpy period atmosphere as if it were oxygen". Quote no 21 can happily be summarised.

Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning.

• Also in 2006, Johansson starred in the short film When the Deal Goes Down, directed by Bennett Miller, set to Bob Dylan's song "When the Deal Goes Down...", released to promote his album, Modern Times. This is not a FA sentence.
• Nolan, who was interested in having Johansson play the role, described her as possessing an "ambiguity" and "a shielded quality" (quote no 21) is ok, I suppose, but the sentence should be recast.
• The film was both a critical and box office success, recommended by the Los Angeles Times as "an adult, provocative piece of work". (quote no 22) Fine but lose "both".
• Some critics were skeptical of her performance: Anne Billson referred to her as miscast, and Dan Jolin in Empire magazine criticized her English accent, writing that she "forgets to engage her audience, trilling the film's only bum note" "Referred" sounds a wee bit WP:SAID again; have you read elegant variation? Quote no 23 is gratuitous and could be removed, perhaps to a footnote.
• Quotes 24-28 are fine I guess, but I dislike "garnered". "Earned"?
• Quote 29 is ok but "labelled" is elegant variation.

Marvel Cinematic Universe and stage roles (2010–2013)

• Set in the 1950s, in an Italian-American neighborhood in New York, it tells the tragic tale of Eddie (played by Liev Schreiber), who has an inappropriate love for his wife's orphaned niece, Catherine (played by Johansson). Johansson was initially uncomfortable playing a teenage character, but later agreed to do the play after a friend convinced her to take on the part. The repetition of the subject's name is awkward. These sentences could be recast to flow better.
• Ben Brantley of The New York Times wrote of Johansson's performance that she "melts into her character so thoroughly that her nimbus of celebrity disappears". This quote (no 30) can be summarised I think.

Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Tim Robey of The Daily Telegraph quote (no 31) could be summarised. --John (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise I have done these things. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking good, thank you. On we go.

• ... it examines the relationships among members of the family of Big Daddy... -> it examines the relationships within the family of Big Daddy
• Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who admitted to being a fan of his acting work "Admitted" is a bit like "revealed". It's the language a tabloid uses to titillate its subliterate readers. I prefer "Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who had previously admired his acting work."
• Claudia Puig of USA Today (no 31) can stay.
• "speaks Samantha in tones sweet, sexy, caring, manipulative and scary" (no 32); I find the quote a bit icky. Could we possibly just use the adjectives?
• Johansson improvised her conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who were unknowingly participating in the film; these scenes were filmed with hidden cameras. -> Johansson improvised conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who did not know they were being filmed.

Recent work (2014–present)

• Johansson was attracted to her character's way of doing her job, employing her feminine wiles and not her sexuality and physical appeal Just "physical appeal" would be fine here, I think.
• Odie Henderson (quote no 33) is fine, as is Richard Roeper (34).
• The Jim Vejvoda quote (35) can be summarised.
• Johansson's pregnancy -> "her pregnancy"
• Earlier in 2016, Johansson featured in Coen brothers' critically acclaimed comedy film Hail, Caesar! needs a "the" in front of "Coen brothers". I don't like "critically acclaimed" either; almost everything has been "acclaimed" by at least one critic. Was it "well-reviewed" or "positively received"? Either of these would be better, if the sources support it.
• Johansson played the cyborg, supersoldier Motoko Kusanagi in Rupert Sanders's 2017 film adaptation of the Ghost in the Shell franchise The comma is awkward, and aren't all supersoldiers cyborgs? One link or the other maybe?
• The film received mixed reviews: it was praised... -> The film was praised...

Music career

• She performed with the Jesus and Mary Chain for a special Coachella reunion show in Indio, California, in April 2007. What was "special" about it? Aren't all reunions "special"? I would just remove this.
• Johansson later spoke of the opportunity she had to record the album, adding, "I thought I would do maybe an album of standards, because I'm not a songwriter. I'm a vocalist." (no 39) This adds nothing at all. I would just remove this too.
• added her voice to -> "sang on"
• In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles. It is made up of... -> "In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles with..."
• The first single released by the group was called "Candy". -> "The group's first single was called "Candy"."

Personal life

• Johansson is reluctant to discuss her personal life, saying, "It's nice to have everybody not know your business." I am agnostic on quote no 40. I'd probably completely remove this, on the basis that she seems to have discussed her personal life quite a bit; the source this quote is drawn from also includes ""Contrary to popular belief, I am not promiscuous", and I think by including this we are falling into the trap of reporting her words about herself in Wikipedia's voice. I'd certainly remove the quote.
• In November 2012, Johansson started dating Frenchman Romain Dauriac... This paragraph is very choppy and needs an edit or two. Too many short sentences.
• They separated in the summer of 2016. -> "They separated in mid-2016." (WP:SEASON)
• Johansson was awarded $3,400, a fraction of the $68,000 she had claimed. -> "Johansson was awarded $3,400; she had claimed $68,000." --John (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Public image

• Johansson is described as a sex symbol by the media, which considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks. All of the media? Trademarks? This isn't quite right.

There are two sources supporting it. It would sound strange to say this and this or some of the media consider these her trademarks. Of course it does not mean all of the media, but the general. I can find other sources saying these things about her, but I failed to find one that says "the media says these things".

• A string of three medium-sized quotations (41-43, unless I've missed one or two) by guys who think she is sexy, including Woody Allen. Hmm. This is perhaps a case for sending the quotes to the reference and just say they have gone on record commenting on her attractiveness. Then her quote about it, which I suppose is fine but could just as easily be summarised.

The Woody Allen quote sounds unnecessary, yes, but I believe comments from Sydney Morning Herald and New Yorker can be kept and are relevant in my opinion.

• Johansson's sex appeal also cost her the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part. -> "Johansson lost the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part."
• What is the pull-quote about? What does it mean? What does it relate to? Is it something frequently quoted by her?

This one should be fine in my opinion; she talks about how she approaches roles or how she acts. This looks like a distinctive quote to me.

• After appearing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute Gala with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, Johansson was announced as the face of the new Dolce & Gabbana make-up collection in early 2009. She made a personal appearance at the London store, Selfridges, in July 2009 to help launch and promote the line We don't need the date it was announced, just the actual date it happened is fine.

Other ventures

• took part in social advocacy as part of the anti-poverty campaign ONE, sounds interesting. What social advocacy did she take part in? The source doesn't say.

Source (page four) only says she took part in it. No particular what she did.

• The two quotes regarding Oxfam and SodaStream really add nothing (I've lost count now but I reckon we were well over 40). It's fine just to say why she withdrew, without the two quotes to support it.
• Of George W. Bush's 2004 reelection, she said, "[I am] disappointed. I think it was a disappointment for a large percentage of the population." -> "When George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, she said she was disappointed."
• Johansson publicly endorsed and supported Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's 2013 run for New York City Comptroller by hosting a series of fundraisers. I'm not sure what a private endorsement would look like. Just "supported" would be fine. Does this even merit a mention?
• She elaborated, "Once the heaviness [of the election] began to subside, an opportunity has presented itself to make real long-term change, not just for future Americans, but in the way we view our responsibility to get involved with and stay active in our communities. Let this weight not drag you down, but help to get your heels stuck in." This looks like yet another self-serving quote. Vanity Fair has a more interesting take on it, that she was advocating for Planned Parenthood based on her own experience with the organisation.

There is a similar one from LA Times already used in the article.

That concludes my first pass on 1a grounds. --John (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I have addressed these as well. FrB.TG (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Final nips and tucks

Are you ok with these edits? I finished this second phase of the review tonight. --John (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you for that and also for your thorough review. When expanding a BLP next time, I’ll make sure I keep the quotes limited to the good ones. FrB.TG (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

FrB.TG, regarding those series of edits, I restored the "ScarJo" quote here (followup note here); I did this because the nickname aspect does not flow well with the "sexiest list"/Madame Tussauds New York paragraph, and I think it's better to address why Johansson dislikes the nickname. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We can also summarize her reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have paraphrased the quote and let it be part of the prose, which I think is better. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it that you don't think the "associate that name with pop stars" part is needed? It does seem that people would think of J.Lo when reading it and take it as an insult with regard to pop stars. I'm not sure if we should mention the pop stars part or not. The gist is that she finds the name lazy and flippant; so your summary gets that across. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if "insulting" should be replaced with "flippant." Apparently, she finds the name disrespectful and something not giving her the seriousness she deserves; so I wonder if "flippant," which is a synonym for "disrespectful," gets that across better. But then again, "insulting" is more commonly used than "flippant." We could also use the word "disrespectful." If you think it's fine as is, I'm okay with that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2017‎ (UTC)

Changed to this. I don't think readers are likely to get what she means by "violent," especially outside of the quote. I don't even understand what she means by it. So I added "flippant" in its place. She uses both "flippant" and "insulting," and these two words don't always automatically mean the same thing; so I think it's fine to include both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's definitely getting there. I still have a question about why we have used the source:

Do you feel like any of the characters you’ve played have been close to who you actually are?

All of the characters are close to who I am in some ways. The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act. So there is a part of me in every role that I play. For better or worse.

and truncated it to

"The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act." —Johansson on her approach to acting

It seems to me we've omitted the question she was responding to, and the first and last sentences of her response, and added on the explanation that the quote is "on her approach to acting". It seems rather to be about how she feels about the characters she plays. I don't like it, and I don't see that is belongs as a pull quote in a section about her "Public image". --John (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed. FrB.TG (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@John: sorry for another ping. Would you mind finishing your review, as I’d like to see this nom conclude. FrB.TG (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. Last few niggles.

• She remembers being on the set of the film, knowing instinctively what to do. Would you mind if we recast this as "She says that when she was on the film set, she knew intuitively what to do"? The "-ing" form is jarring, especially when repeated twice in a sentence, and this wasn't instinct but perhaps more intuitiveness.
• I'm aware that alt text for images isn't essential for FA any more, but I like them and if we are going to have them they should be more descriptive. For example, the one for File:Lee Strasberg Institute 115 East 15th Street.jpg should not read A picture of the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute. but something more like "A red-brick three-story building with a tree outside it" so as to actually provide info for people who can't see the picture, rather than just duplicate the caption.
• Where's the sourcing that Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media and fans? One source says it is "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using" is sourced to an archived article on Yahoo.com, maybe not the strongest of sources. I do prefer my version which was "Johansson has been called "ScarJo" by the media and fans, but dislikes it." but really the "and fans" is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed. --John (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "and fans" part, but I do think that her reason to dislike the nickname should be retained in prose rather than in footnote in quotes. I liked your other suggestions. FrB.TG (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem with that, but I think that we are struggling even with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media. What does "commonly" even mean here? I don't see it in the Guardian coverage, for example. And thanks for implementing my suggestion for the alt text but I think all or most of them would need to be similarly adjusted. --John (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think. FrB.TG (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The point of "commonly" was the point that all qualifiers have. And we do use qualifiers, such generally or typically (and, yeah, commonly too), on Wikipedia. Qualifiers such as these let readers know that it's not an "always" matter. The wording "prone to using" is also something that lets one know that it's not an "always" or "solely" matter. Johansson is not solely called "ScarJo" by the media, but it's common enough that she's commented on it multiple times. That stated, I can live with the removal of "commonly" for the piece. "Fans" should be there as well since she's called this by fans too. But since "fans" is not sourced, we'll have to do without it for now. I obviously agree with FrB.TG that Johansson's reasons for disliking the nickname should be retained. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't "the media" in general though, at least according to our sources, it is "gossip magazines"; can you live with this? --John (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. I don't know about The Guardian, but Rolling Stone and Variety have. Not sure if that qualifies as the media in general though. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Per this CBS News source and this The Sydney Morning Herald source, it is not just the media who calls her ScarJo; it is the general pubic, as in the media and fans, which is the original wording I used per the sources. The CBS source, which had been in the article before, states, "Your fame means that your name has been reduced to acronym that everybody uses." The Sydney Morning Herald states, "Johansson has said she finds the nickname insulting and wants her fans to stop using it." So we have sources noting that the media and her fans call her "ScarJo," and that she strongly dislikes this. One source stating "a gossip magazine mainstay" does not mean that gossip magazines alone call her "ScarJo." Per the sources, it's clear that people in general call her that, not just gossip magazines. Indeed, one source that John cited above states "the name that the media is prone to using," which means the "media commonly calls her this." We have sources stating the "media" and "fans." Per this, I removed John's wording of "certain sections of the media." Use of "certain sections of the media" is not wording employed by any of the sources and it's WP:Weasel wording because it makes people wonder "Which sections?" when reading it. I changed the wording to "by the public," and supported this with the CBS News source, which says that "everybody uses" the nickname "ScarJo." I also changed the Yahoo! source to The Sydney Morning Herald source for Johansson's interview since John expressed hesitancy about using the Yahoo! source. I was going to use the Glamour magazine source as a direct source, but I didn't see the part where Johansson comments on the matter when I clicked on URLs for it (such as this one, which only shows photos and has brief descriptions). And since The Sydney Morning Herald uses the word "fans," that was a plus per my previous "and fans" argument. I re-added "commonly" per what I stated above and in this paragraph (it's more accurate and flows better), but we can remove that again. I also re-added "is," because there is no indication that Johansson being called "ScarJo" is a past matter and not a present matter as well.

I don't see that we need to spend any more time on this particular aspect. Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by both the media and fans, very much dislikes, and we note this. Simple. Let's move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I can't live with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the public on a BLP FAC as it is introducing a synthesis from sources which speak of acronym that everybody uses (although it clearly is an acronym it clearly isn't used by everybody, so I would distrust this source) and ones that refer to "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using"; how, do we get from there to 'commonly called "ScarJo" by the public'? I'm sure there is a good compromise out there, but this isn't it. --John (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

John, "commonly" is no more WP:Synthesis than your use of "certain sections of the media." When we look at the definition of "tend," we see that it means "regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic." So how is a reliable source stating "the name that the media is prone to using" not the same thing as "the name that the media commonly calls her"? As for the CBS News source stating "an acronym that everybody uses," the source obviously does not mean that everyone in the world uses the name, just like sources don't mean that all critics hated a film when they state "critics panned the film." There is no reason to take such a strict reading of sources and forgo WP:Common sense. We are allowed to use synonyms. As for distrusting sources, it is CBS News; it is undoubtedly a reliable source. So are the Rolling Stone and Variety sources above. There is nothing that says we must use a The Guardian source instead. We go by what reliable sources state. And the CBS News source is speaking of the the fact Johansson is widely called "ScarJo." So, per the sources, we can leave the text as "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the public.", which is not ideal to me since it leaves out the important "commonly" qualifier, or we can add "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." We have reliable sources stating "media" and "fans." I don't see what is so contentious about this text you keep disputing. I did remove "commonly" (followup note here), despite "tend to" being a synonym for "frequently" and "frequently" being a synonym for "commonly." Stating "Johansson is frequently called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." would also work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Above, John stated, "I do prefer my version which was 'Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it.' but really the 'and fans' is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed." Per this and what I stated above, I have changed the text to "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." The first source (the Yahoo! source) states "media" and the second source (the The Sydney Morning Herald source) states "fans." The text is completely supported by the sources. And as stated before, use of "is" happens to be more accurate than "has been" in this case. And use of "the media and fans" obviously does not mean all of the media and fans, which is why adding the qualifier "commonly" or "frequently" is better. It's why one source states "prone to." But I trust that our readers will have common sense, just like they will know that "she is described as a sex symbol by the media" does not mean every media outlet ever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: Maybe noting here that some scholarly sources call her "ScarJo" or specifically comment on the "ScarJo" aspect will help show how common and notable the "ScarJo" nickname is. For example, this 2015 "The Oxford Handbook of the Word" source, from OUP Oxford, page 1019, states, "A small set of public celebrity nicknames combine a forename initial with a truncation of the surname [...] Forms that combine forename and surname truncations, such as Cujo for Curtis Joseph or ScarJo for Scarlett Johansson, are also found." This 2016 "The Palgrave Handbook of Posthumanism in Film and Television" source, from Springer, page 42, flat out uses "ScarJo" in its title for a section when analyzing some of Johansson's films. The only reason we even mention "ScarJo" in the Wikipedia article is because of how common it is and because Johansson has stated multiple times that she dislikes it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@John:, by stating "the media", we certainly do not mean all of the media. I don't think this "all of the media" point applies anywhere as that is not true in any case. Since there are many reliable sources that have called her that, I think it is currently okay, although, if I am being honest, I wasn't a big fan of "commonly" either. I have added an "often" there to imply that they do not always call her that. Hope it works now. FrB.TG (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How about Johansson dislikes the nickname "ScarJo" which some media and fans refer to her by, finding it lazy, flippant and insulting.? I think putting her dislike first is important, and I think "some" is fairer than "often". I had never heard of it before undertaking this review, and although I take your examples as given, I'm not sure we have the sources to say "often" and there seem to be sources which never use the nickname. It might seem silly to press this point, but it is slightly running into BLP and the principle of "do no harm", so it's important to get it right. As far as I'm aware this is my last outstanding point. --John (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

John, I'm trying to understand your issue with the text, but I can't. Your latest suggested wording doesn't flow well and it's unnecessary WP:Weasel wording. "Some media" begs the question of "which media?", and, as FrB.TG and I have shown, it's not just the gossip media calling her this. You stated that you had never heard of it and that some sources don't call her this. But that does not negate how common the nickname is. I can point to numerous things that are common with regard to a specific topic, but that some or many editors have never heard of. The fact that all of the media has not referred to her as "ScarJo" does not mean that the nickname is not common. If it were not common, I highly doubt that the first scholarly book I cited above would have taken the time to mention it. I highly doubt that Johansson would have taken the time to comment on the topic multiple times. I highly doubt that sources would state "prone to using" and "an acronym that everybody uses." If it's not used as much now as it once was, that is because some of the media have respected Johansson's wishes. But we don't have sources noting this decrease in usage. As for use of "often," it is supported by "prone to," which equates to "tends to." I've already linked to what "tend" means, for anyone needing to see a definition of it and its synonyms. But, like I noted before, we can forgo a qualifier in this case, even though a qualifier would be better. You take issue with "often," even though sources and Google searches show that it is an "often" matter, but sources don't state "some" on this issue. They are clear that the nickname is widely used. Again, you proposed the following: "Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it." The only difference between that and the current wording (besides the fact that we note why she dislikes the name) is that "often" is included (which, again, is something we can remove) and that "is" takes the place of "has been." The current wording, which is supported by ample evidence, is nowhere close to harming Johansson. It's not a WP:BLP violation. This is nothing to spend so much time on, or fail an article over. FrB.TG has done a wonderful job on the article, and this piece is a minor aspect of it.

All that stated, why don't we just go back to your "has been" wording? The text would read as follows: Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it, finding it lazy, flippant and insulting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the text back to "has been." Can you live with this, John? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that works. FrB.TG, Flyer22 Reborn, it's been a pleasure to work with you. I think (without having checked) that this may be my most exacting FAC, but I think the quality of the article speaks of the thoroughness of the reviews it has undergone. I'm sure there are still minor improvements to be made but this is now at FA standard. Support. --John (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. This might be the most thorough review in any of my FACs. I am grateful for all of your contributions. FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad that things have finally worked out. Happy Thanksgiving Eve to everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: FrB.TG and John, the Public image section currently states: "Johansson dislikes being objectified as she believes it does not last." To me, this line implies that she would like being objectified if it did last. It previously stated, "Regardless, Johansson dislikes being 'super-sexualised' as 'the new Marilyn Monroe' and 'always be[ing] an object of desire. Because it doesn't last.'" I feel that it would be better to state the following: Johansson dislikes being sexualized, and believes that a preoccupation with attractiveness does not last. And it seems that we should drop this source since it doesn't show her stating that she dislikes it, and instead simply retain the second source...which does show her stating that? I also think use of "sexualized" is better per the sources and that some outlets that praise Johansson's looks likely don't think that they are objectifying her. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Your version is much better. On a side note, is this ready to be closed now, Sarastro1? FrB.TG (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor change here. Flows okay, I think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TriiipleThreat

Do we really need images of Robert Redford and Tom Waits? Images add a lot of WP:WEIGHT to particular pieces of information and by adding these images, they appear to diminish Johansson's own accomplishments by shifting responsibility to these artist. It seems the prose alone would be sufficient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There are many images of Johansson herself; the two images of these two men hardly diminish her accomplishments. I have made two simple statements in the images, that Redford gave Johansson her breakthrough role and Johansson's first album was based on works of Waits. Julianne Moore, for example, an FA, has images of her directors. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s right there either.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of these images, I wouldn't base anything on the status of Julianne Moore. I wouldn't support its promotion if it was at FAC and it seems to have had a very easy (ie incomplete) review back in 2013. --John (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I certainly did not base it on that. I only mentioned that article to state that it is not uncommon to also add images that not of the subject itself. FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I took the time to read the Julianne Moore article, and I think it is very well-written. I know that the quoteboxes there may not be some editors' style, but, in my opinion, it's still an article worthy of being a featured article. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Julianne Moore/archive1, there are not as many reviewers there as there are here, but there are some editors there who are experienced FAC reviewers (and are even more experienced years later). The reviewing process seen there is not much different than the one seen here, although one aspect here had a slightly prolonged debate. All that stated, comparing the promoted version to the current version, we see that the Robert Altman image was not there in the promoted version. Sure, a Jeff Bridges image is there, but it's an image of Moore and Bridges. He's not by himself. Same goes for the Colin Firth image. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the male images at this (the Scarlett Johansson) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I'm not sure these image issues, or the status of another article, are relevant to this FAC and any further discussion of the images can take place on the article talk page. Well done to all concerned here for a robust but very civil FAC! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

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