Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Connelly/archive3

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [1].

Jennifer Connelly[edit]

Nominator(s): GDuwenTell me! 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC) --Gunt50 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded 21:25, May 30, 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been previously nominated to FA after a peer review. The article was not promoted and the last weeks underwent a new Peer Review and copy-editing.GDuwenTell me! 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ~~These are all rather small things.~~

"In 2001, she stated that director Ang Lee's philosophical perspective on Marvel's superhero was what had sparked her interest in the film.[54]" I think that "In 2001," should be dropped since it seems a bit unnecessary. Also, this and the sentence before it began with "In", so it's kinda repetitious.

"a film that saw limited release in the fall of 2007.[67]" Things like "fall" should be avoided

"She played a major role in an adaptation of the novel Little Children" I think it would be better to link "an adaption" rather than just adaption since some readers (like me) might assume that it links to an article about adapting literature material rather than the actual movie

Isn't He's Just Not That Into You a 2009 release?

The last part of the 2008-2011 section should be at the beginning since it's taking about her modeling contracts from 2008 onward.

"In the mid-1990s," I think "During the mid-1990s," would fit better, also because the previous paragraph starts will "in"

Reference 38 is incorrect. Rotten Tomatoes' publisher is Flixster, not News Corporation. Same for other RT sources (like 88)

There seems to be something wrong with reference 54

You should remove the period in the publisher in reference 47 since it comes out as ""A Beautiful Mind (2001)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb.com, Inc.."

Shouldn't the 'work' for reference 39 be Salon.com instead of Salon Media?

~~The Daily Mail (ref 104) is a tabloid and not always reliable. Could you substitute the source for something else?~~

Crystal Clear x3 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The corrections were made. Reference 54 seems to work now, I removed the archive URL since that probably that caused the problem. Thanks for the comments.--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome =). ~~Two more things I found were: in the 2008-2011 section per above, "In the spring of 2008" and "their publicity shots for the fall of 2009", should be reworded aswell.~~Crystal Clear x3 23:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again. I just took care of the unnecessary things you noticed.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support with a few more minor things:

The two last captions should just have her last name to remain consistent with the others.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in "2008 remake" should also be linked.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"2009 roles included" Should be "Other 2009 roles included" since you mentioned HJNTIY in the previous paragraph.

The line was modified by Jimknut in a previous revision.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the filmography chart, I think it would be better to say her role in 9 was "7 (voice)" and state that it was an Animated film in the notes section

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Toronto International Film Festival should be linked in the last caption

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clear x3 08:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Crystal Clear x3 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Risker

Your comments and work on copy-edits are much appreciated. I've been working on some of them. Because of reality matters me and GDuwen will keep working on this later, so we beg for patience. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel an urge to rush; better to take your time and make considered changes. I'm hoping that you soon get more comments as well, as you have done a lot of very good work already. Risker (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of copy-editing as I reviewed the article.

We appreciate you took the time for that. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Early life - St. Ann's in one sentence, Saint Ann's two sentences later.~~Risker (talk)

I spotted it twice on the article, but I substituted its second appearance for the 'same school'. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move the TV Guide review of Inventing The Abbotts, it is not adding anything (she isn't mentioned in it) and the placement of the reference interrupts the flow of the sentence. If you really feel it must be kept, put it at the end of the sentence.Risker (talk)

I did it

Generally speaking, try to avoid placing references in the middle of a sentence, as it adversely affects the readability of the article. Consider whether one or two references will cover the key information rather than having three or more for a single sentence. There are still a few, but they seem to make sense to me.Risker (talk)
- Examples: Sentence about Higher Learning; the eight-word sentence "The family moved to Woodstock, New York in 1976" has three references, one should suffice; critical success of A Beautiful Mind; first sentence of the 2005-2007 paragraph, etc.

The excess of sources was moderated.--GDuwenTell me! 03:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Try not to mix information about two films in the same sentence, e.g. the paragraph about Hulk and House of Sand and Fog; a clean break helps the reader identify the new "thought" better.~~ Risker (talk)

Clarified with a two-sentence break.--GDuwenTell me! 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re The Day the Earth Stood Still: The section "but unlike the original, in which her character was a secretary and her romantic relationship with Klaatu the focus of the movie, the remake emphasized the troubled relationship between her and her stepson" is confusing, as it suggests Connelly performed in both versions. Try to rework this sentence to make it more clear. Clearer. Risker (talk)

The sentence was rephrased in order to avoid further confusion.--GDuwenTell me! 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rewording the sentence "She was included in the ensemble cast of the 2009 romantic comedy She was included in the ensemble cast of the 2009 romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You,[77] based on the self-help book of the same name,[78][79] which also featured Jennifer Aniston and Ginnifer Goodwin. which also featured Jennifer Aniston and Ginnifer Goodwin." to:
- "She was included in the ensemble cast (which also featured Jennifer Aniston and Ginnifer Goodwin) of the 2009 romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You, based on the self-help book of the same name." Risker (talk)

Phrase reworded--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Re Creation: Consider reworking the sentence "The pair are both in mourning following the death of their daughter Annie."~~
- ~~"The couple are in mourning..."? "Both husband and wife are separately mourning the death of their daughter..."? You are probably more familiar with the appropriate context here.~~ I made a tiny further copy edit to more standard English usage. Risker (talk)

I made some arrangements in the sentence, that should explain it better.--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about "2011" films needs some work: both films were released in January 2011, so they were obviously filmed before then. Perhaps reworking the sentences to say "Howard directed her in the 2011 release..." or words to that effect would help. Risker (talk)

I rephrased the sentences.--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her Amnesty International ambassadorship is mentioned in the lead; however, the only reference to it in the article is a single sentence that isn't much longer than the one in the lead. Suggest trying to beef this up a bit if you can find suitable references. It might be worthwhile even to include some information on such ambassadorships generally to provide context. Risker (talk)

I removed the line from the lead, as it is just a one liner in the article.--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there any information on future professional or personal plans? This might be a good way to "wrap up" the article.~~ Okay, I guess it's a timing thing. Risker (talk)

Her last project which she filmed before her pregnancy is opening next month. Me and the other nominator have followed news about her and there's nothing indicating a future project (excepting for a rumored movie which she denied). We're gonna add some info about her future as long as something is confirmed. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed many of the references for this article.

As I don't always have a chance to get over to this page, please ping me on my talk page when you've considered my comments above. Thanks for the opportunity to review. Risker (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My issues listed above are satisfactorily resolved, and I've done a tiny bit more copy editing as I've gone through again.
Second sentence about Career Opportunities: I don't think that is quite what the reference source says; I'm reading it as Whaley looking at Connelly rather than Connelly looking at Whaley. I'd suggest trying to find the original People Magazine article that complained of Connelly's exploitation or, alternately, to remove the sentence.

I corrected the line, Whaley was looking at Connelly, it was my own confussion.--GDuwenTell me! 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Casliber about adding a little more about some of the films; if there aren't interviews or reviews about her performance, even a fuller description of the movie or character (properly sourced, of course) might add some colour to the article.

Me & Gunt50 are working to expand further details of some films, I agree that it would make the article more complete.--GDuwenTell me! 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there references for the "most beautiful woman" lists? When was she included in the lists? Might this fit into the "Personal life" section?

The reference is next to each publication listed, whe decided to remove previously the years in which she was included in the lists to avoid redundancies and to shorten all of them into one sentence.--GDuwenTell me! 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is coming along very nicely, you are doing good work! Risker (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note right now, my intended final once-over last night got unexpectedly derailed. I'll be back online in about 2 hours, at which time this will be my first priority. Risker (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As seems to be the way my weekend has been going, my continued review has been interrupted several times. I have, however, been making some notes as I go through, and I've done a couple of copy edits. While I am not finished, one of the things I was doing was matching the content to the reference sources, and I've noted some weaknesses. Since I'm not finished, I will leave them in my sandbox, but the nominators can feel free to jump ahead and try to address some of these issues. I'll continue tomorrow. Incidentally, I can see that there have been some notable improvements since the last time I read the article through. Risker (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The filmography list has been made sortable but the titles do not sort properly. Titles that begin with "The", "A", or "An" should never sort under those words. Instead they should sort under the title's following world. Example: The Day the Earth Stood Still should sort under "Day". Please fix this. Jimknut (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, it is now fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but now it's fixed better! Jimknut (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'll make copyedits as I read through (check edit summaries for explanations) - please revert any inadvertent changes I introduce as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...is an American film actress and former child model who started modeling after a friend of her parents suggested an audition. - tricky - best not to double up on words if one can help it, could we rewrite as "is an American film actress, and who enjoyed a career as a child model after a friend of her parents suggested an audition." or something like it?

It's fixed now.--GDuwenTell me! 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article as a whole lacks something - there are a sprinkling of bio facts and a long list of films. I am wondering if there is other material out there which might have some more encompassing material in it - what did she enjoy working on the most, more about her background and philosophy etc.

I've tried to add more material but there is not much available online that provides of further details of Ms. Connelly's biography (other than the ones that are already used). I feel that the article is similar to Kirsten Dunst's, that already is a FA. Both articles concentrate in their filmography, and in both cases the "Early life" and "Personal life" sections cover almost the same aspects.--GDuwenTell me! 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good comparison - looking at them, I do feel some of the individual films have a little more material. I think if you find any other material (for instance) where Connelly discusses a role, or someone else does, or any other aspect of a film which seems noteworthy, then these are extremely valuable in breaking up a "she did this film, then that film, then...etc.". I just feel sprinkling a little more would help this article greatly. ~~I saw some other material online about her being in the Union of the Snake clip and so~~ think there can be a little more gleaned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for content that might be interesting in interviews. It's not very clear if she appeared in the clip of Union of the Snake, it was previously included in the article but due that there are several debates if she was or not in it we decided to remove it. Either way I was not able to find a reliable source online to cite it.--GDuwenTell me! 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to add some more info about her personal considerations to the article. I added a statement she made on becoming a parent which seems interesting since she expresses her the changes in her persona after giving birth to her first child. --Gunt50 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much to add about her main roles since they're already described. We considered the roles good enough described. We had to cover the former-poorly-explained critics' and casting (about A Beautiful Mind) aspects before nominating the article again. We're all ears to hear more suggestions. --Gunt50 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looking a little better - yes, that's the idea of the sort of material I was thinking the article would benefit from. I'm still not crazy about the article - there are loads of hits on google books for all sorts of bits and pieces - also saw this, though I don't know much about it...I have been browsing the books to see if anything comes up that fits the bill...Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Jennifer Connelly Handbook" is a compilation of Wikipedia articles, includes this article plus the ones of her movies. I've been reading the available content in Google Books, but most of the information I found is already included in the article.--GDuwenTell me! 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: No issues copyright-wise, however I would like to see better descriptions added for File:Jennifer Connelly TIFF09.jpg, File:Paul Bettany-Jennifer Connelly TIFF09.jpg (both just have IMG_# as description), and File:JenniferConnellycomiccon.JPG (desc. says Tim Burton at comic-con yet he's not in the pic) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions are now complete.--GDuwenTell me! 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. As a suggestion, you may want to ask those who gave a prose review to revisit and see if they want to support now. This is likely to be archived again due to lack of support otherwise. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready for support Overall this article looks extremely good to me. I made a few minor changes in the text so that it reads better(in my opinion at least). There is only one other suggestion that I will make before I give it my full support and that is with the outline structure:

Rather than this ...	... how about doing it this way?
Contents [hide] Early life Child modelling and early movie appearances Career 1980s–1990s Early 2000s 2005–2007 2008–2011 Personal life Filmography References External links	Contents [hide] Life and career Birth and early life Child modelling and early movie appearances 1980s–1990s Early 2000s 2005–2007 2008–2011 Personal life Filmography References External links

I think it will make the article to look better organized. The "Birth and early life" sub-section would be followed by the sentence "Connelly was born in Round Top, New York ..." Jimknut (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, certainly the article looks better organized now.--GDuwenTell me! 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article looks extremely good and I recommend it for FA status. — Jimknut (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source checks for reliability, close paraphrasing, and accurate representation of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I swear I'm not trying to pick on this article, but I still think it needs additional improvement before it is ready for promotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - for people unfamiliar with my reviewing style, I thought I should clarify: on points where I say "check for others" or similar, the example provided is an example only, not the only instance of the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14: publisher, page(s)?

Number added.--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of other print sources missing page numbers, which are required for verification

Missing page numbers added--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing format needs cleanup for consistency. For example, compare refs 17 and 23

The inconsistency between those two sources relies in the type of citation, ref 17 is a web citation (use of the template Cite web), while ref 23 is an article citation (use of cite news template).--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the original source for this material and this story?

I've found the original of Vanity Fair but not the one related to veganism.--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some WP:MOS issues - repeated wikilinks, quotation problems, etc
"When Connelly was ten years old, an advertising executive friend of her father suggested she audition as a model.[3] As a result she joined the Ford Modeling Agency and began modelling in print advertisements when she was ten years old" - "When Connelly was ten years old...when she was ten years old". Check for other instances of repetition

Repetition erased.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, most of the complaints concerned an ad" - unclear phrasing, check for others

I've tried to make it more clear.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"where she was selected for a supporting role as Deborah Gelly in Sergio Leone's 1984 gangster epic, Once Upon a Time in America" - cited source agrees she was in that movie, but doesn't specify her role, how she was selected, or the details of the film

I removed that ref, leaving instead the article of Interview Magazine.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The clip ended with the phrase..." - no, according to the source this ad was a cardboard cutout with the phrase written on it. I found a few other instances of material unsupported by or contradictory to the cited source - nothing egregious, but please double-check interpretation of sources

OK, my bad. Fixed--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In December 1986 recorded two pop songs" - grammar, check for other errors

Subject added to the phrase.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In an interview with Rolling Stone during her sophomore year at Yale, Connelly stated..." - where does the following quote end? There are no closing quotation marks. Check for other punctuation errors throughout.

Quote closed.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When not attributing material directly to a critic or writer, you must maintain an academic tone. Phrases like "afforded her the chance to work with" seem to lean towards POV writing

Is it ok now?--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Although a disappointment at the box office" - source?

The performance at the box office was sourced.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor instances of overly close paraphrasing - for example, "director Ang Lee's philosophical perspective on the Marvel Comics superhero" vs "director Ang Lee's philosophical perspective on Marvel's superhero". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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