Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Julianne Moore/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Julianne Moore

edit

Julianne Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lobo (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Julianne Moore's article (on and off) since last summer, wanting this talented and well-known actress to have a top-quality article. Most of the heavy work was done between February and April of this year, at which time it received a detailed peer review. I've been away from WP for a while, but I am now ready to give this a shot at FAC. I feel that it is at the same standard as other contemporary-actor FAs, but all suggestions for improvement are welcomed.

A pre-emptive comment re sources - I have done my best to make sure all the sources are high quality, and I believe I can defend the usage of all of them (a couple that may not appear "high quality" are either legitimate interviews with Moore herself, or written by respected individuals). IMDb is only used to source multiple award nominations, and this is because it is so much more convenient to link to the one page than all the different awarding bodies. IMDb is the best, most comprehensive source available for this information and I sincerely believe its usage should be justified in such instances. Lobo (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

edit

I was one of the happy reviewers at PR back in March. Only a couple of minor points picked up this time round:

Early roles

  • "appearing in the notorious Madonna flop": do we need "notorious"?
It's backed by the source, but no, I guess it's a bit unnecessary. --Lobo (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2003–09

  • "failed to find an audience": a bit unencyclopaedic (and the overly literal part of me wants to ask "what, not one single person?")
This is tricky! I'm not crazy about the sentence either, but I've found it extremely hard to find sources that mention Marie and Bruce's failure (which goes to show how much of a failure it was! There's no mention of the film anywhere.) The reference currently given is the one reliable source I've found, and the comment is: "Nor did I catch the 2004 film, starring Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick. (Apparently, nobody else did either.)" I wanted to use the source accurately, so I thought that was the best term to use. Any suggestions of a better phrase (that would still be accurately represented in the source)? --Lobo (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I struggled too - couldn't find it in any of the usual places. I think it failed to get a ditribution deal (from several unreliable sources) but was shown at sundance in 2004. One thing we go know is that: The film went "straight to DVD a few years after making the festival rounds".<ref>{{cite news|last=Russo|first=Tom|title=Chill with scenes of young vampires in love|newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]]|date=March 15, 2009|page=14}}</ref> That's a straight quote from the news, so feel free to use or paraphrase as you like. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's much more direct and useful, good work in finding it. If a film plays at festivals but then goes straight to DVD, that means it was never picked up by a distributor and didn't have a cinematic release. So I've now been able to put that in the article - thanks! --Lobo (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from those very minor points, an excellent article that covers everything you could hope to know in sufficient detail but without being overwhelming. – SchroCat (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—all good for me. Great article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks so much for your time and support. --Lobo (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

edit

I have completed a read through and see very little wrong with this fine piece of work. I wanted to offer at least some comments so please excuse the "nit-pickety" nature which I adopt. Here are some which I am not sure of:

  • "Moore frequently moved around the country as a child..." -- Which country? We mention both America and Scotland in the preceding text. I know she never actually lived in Scotland, but the text would flow better with a specific country
Early roles

Looks good

Rise to prominence

Looks good

Widespread recognition

Looks good

Widespread recognition
  • "Moore plays Maude Lebowski, a feminist artist and daughter of the eponymous character who becomes involved with "The Dude" (Jeff Bridges, the film's star)." -- Could we get away with a pronoun at the start? I see no other mention of another female in the text before it. Failing that, could we illuminate some of the mentions of her surname in favour of pronouns, as it is bordering a little on repetition. For example: "Moore followed her success in Boogie Nights with a role in the Coen brothers' dark comedy The Big Lebowski (1998). The film was not a hit at the time of release but subsequently became a cult classic. Moore plays Maude Lebowski, a feminist artist and daughter of the eponymous character who becomes involved with "The Dude" (Jeff Bridges, the film's star). At the end of 1998, Moore had a flop with Gus Van Sant's Psycho, a remake of the classic Alfred Hitchcock film of the same name. Moore played Lila Crane..."
  • "Moore's fifth and final film of 1999..." -- do we need both "fifth" and "final", or could we get away with just the latter?
2003–09
2010s
  • The Telegraph links to The Daily Telegraph, but I see no alternative name given in the linked article that omits "Daily". Is this correct, or does it disambiguate to this, this, or this?
    • This is because the website given in the reference only says "The Telegraph" - ie, it combines both the Daily and Sunday papers; WP, however, has separate articles, so I just decided to go with the Daily article. I think the options here are either to link it to Telegraph Media Group, or to tweak the article to say Daily Telegraph (and assume he probably writes for them). What do you think? --Lobo (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critic Betsy Sharkey praised Moore's..." -- The definate article would sound a little less magaziney I think.
  • "Moore was not seen on screens again..." -- Do you mean to pluralize this?
Reception and roles
  • "Moore has been described as one of the most talented and accomplished actresses of her generation." -- By who?
    • Hmm...I completely understand why you've picked up on this, but I'm also finding it difficult to think how it could be attributed. The specific journalists could be named, but I'm not sure it would read very well. I considered "described by commentators", or "described in the media", but then that seems redundant...what do you think would be best? --Lobo (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could mention the most notable critic, or the one who holds the biggest influence. Sure, listing them all would be incorrect; or, like you say, we could give a general reference to the type of people who call Moore this? I quite like "described in the media", but ill leave this to you. -- CassiantoTalk 04:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...director Ridley Scott" -- Definate article?
  • "Journalist Kira Cochrane →definate article. It maybe worth going through and checking them all for the definite article use. It reads sooo much better IMO
Writing
  • "children's book author" -- redundancy of "book".
Personal life
  • "Moore met her first husband, actor and stage director John Gould Rubin" -- guess what :)
  • "journalist Suzie Mackenzie" -- and here.

I see no other issues, but I feel we need to nail the whole definite article thing. I really do think that using it makes for a better read. A really good article Lobo, great work! -- CassiantoTalk 21:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right about using definite articles, and have added them throughout the article where needed. Points to which I haven't asked your opinion have all been fixed. Thank you so much for the review and the compliment! --Lobo (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check and quotes (GermanJoe)

edit

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (Flickr, OTRS, CC). Sources and authors provided. Some minor points and suggestions for improvements of quoteboxes and image selection:

  • Quote "captions" => probably shouldn't end in periods for incomplete phrases (similar to images). Some have, some haven't periods at the moment - needs to be consistent either way.
  • "Early Roles" quote => i couldn't find her name change mentioned in the article. If it's important enough for a quote, it should be added as information to the main text.
  • "Widespread recognition" quote => pure PR-speak (sorry) with no factual information, should be removed.
  • Image selection => images are OK, however the usage of 4 single shoots of her just smiling into the camera isn't very captivating. More images like File:Moore_and_Bridges_Lebowskifest.jpg, where she is actually doing something with context, would be better (ignore, if no such images are available).
    • Yeah I'd love for there to be some more "encyclopedic" images, but unfortunately there's hardly any PD photos of her available. I've trawled through Flickr, and what you see on the page is the best there is. --Lobo (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Julianne_Moore_at_Jerrold_Nadler_gala.jpg => doesn't really add a lot, an image of 2009 is in the same section to show her look. Maybe the Savage Grace photo would fit better here, as the film is mentioned in the section.
  • File:JulianneMoore08TIFF.jpg => the festival is not mentioned in the main article, did anything note-worthy happen? Some stronger context between image and text would be good. GermanJoe (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the above two comments: I take it you are someone who doesn't like images being used for purely decorative reasons? But I differ on this (quite strongly): I really think images make a page look more appealing and reader-friendly. The ones on this page are literally just Moore standing around smiling, I know that, and I absolutely prefer encyclopedic (and varied) images where possible, but if smiling photos is all that's available then I still think it's worth keeping them (if nothing else then to add some colour to the page)...Is that okay? Also, I'm really big on using captions to give readers info and show how the image is relevant to the section (take a look at my other big articles, listed on my user page, for examples) but I just don't think it's possible here...
    • Thanks very much for taking the time to look and comment. --Lobo (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no other images are available, no problem (images should be encyclopedic per Wiki style-guides, but a slightly decorative image is sometimes better than no image at all). GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

edit
  • "The thriller The Hand That Rocks the Cradle was a US box office number one" seems sloppy - perhaps, debuted in first place in the US box office, or something similar?
  • Is there a reason why she avoided films in 2003?
  • I read some criticism of her Boston accent in 30 Rock (can't remember where), but it's your choice if you'd like to add it.
    • Yeah there was a lot of criticism from viewers, but I can't really find any good quality sources that mention it (and if I was going to mention it I'd like to be able to give a broad summary, like "she was widely criticized for her Boston accent", but that would need to be explicitly said in a source)...I'll keep looking though. --Lobo (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend you convert % to percent, per MOS:PERCENT

Overall this reads well and it obviously benefits from some thorough research! There don't seem to be too many issues, but if I think of some more I'll be sure to add them here. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took another look today and am happy to support this nomination. Thanks for taking this one on! (Somewhat related, but my favorite performance of hers will always be from The Hours. Great actress.) Ruby 2010/2013 17:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.

edit

Article looks comprehensive and well-written, great job Lobo! Some minor things:

  • The family lived in multiple locations, including Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Panama, Nebraska, Alaska, New York, and Virginia, and Moore attended nine different schools" -Any idea which cities?
  • "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but introduced her to a wide audience. The thriller The Hand That Rocks the Cradle was number one at the US box office,[21] and Moore caught the attention of several critics with her performance." Can you elaborate on her role and mention some of the co stars perhaps?
  • "surrounded by famous faces, but it proved to be Moore's breakout role.[20][25] Variety magazine described her as "arresting", and noted that her monologue, delivered naked from the waist down, would "no doubt be the most discussed scene" of the film.[26] The moment has since become famous" -repetition of famous.
  • The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a very important landmark film in her career. It would be good if you could add a little bit background info on production, where it was shot, what she did on set etc if the info exists and any relevant production info involving her on any of the films, if not don't worry. I just find actor biographies more interesting if for some films you're able to find some info of interesting filming locations or her studying certain things to prepare for a part, you know what I mean? You do explore her characters in Reception and roles though which really helps add depth to the article.
    • I found a good comment from her about making the film - hopefully the source will be acceptable (it's clearly a real interview with her). I've also added a fact about Boogie Nights, and will see if there's anything else worth adding. I have tried to make the article more than IMDb in prose form, heh, but it's already a pretty long article and since she's been in so many films (and is showing no sign of slowing down!) I don't feel like there's much space "available"... --Lobo (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you widen the blue quote boxes a little? They're a little too skinny for my liking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now looking in safari on my smaller screen.

Support Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have your review and support, thanks Doc. --Lobo (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- Did I miss a source review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, haven't had one yet. I've taken the liberty of adding a request to the FAC talk page. --Lobo (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thank you very much for taking on that task, I know there were a lot of sources to wade through! --Lobo (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Julianne_Moore/archive1&oldid=1144463070"