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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2016 [1].

Emma Stone[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something about this redhead's husky voice that really gets me. I have enjoyed some of her films. Anyway, after a GAN, I was fortunate enough to receive thorough reviews from Moisejp and SchroCat. Thanks to SNUGGUMS, images have been reviewed in the article's talk. Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews. As I explained on the PR, I have used IMDb to source the awards section, which I know is not considered reliable, but in this case, it simply lists (or should I say relists) the awards she has won or been nominated for. I think it is much more convenient to link one page than to repeat a bundle of sources in a section. FrB.TG (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808[edit]

Made some minor copy-edits throughout. Here's my comments:

Early career

That's actually all I saw aside from the minor copy-editing. As to your comment about IMBD, although it may be more convenient, you should have reliable links for the awards. --JDC808 ♫ 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot JDC808. Regarding the IMDb bit, I would like to add that they are already sourced in the career section (I don't wanna repeat a bunch of sources which look weird). That source is just to not leave an unsourced section. FrB.TG (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating sources is fine, and doesn't look weird. Just make a <ref name=> for them. --JDC808 ♫ 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a little tricky. Even if I do repeat them (perhaps 17 refs for those two lines), nowhere in those sources do state that she's the nominee of two BAFTAs and two Golden Globes and such. IMDb is just fine to me and repeating 17 sources do look weird. Another article (of FA quality) has done the same. FrB.TG (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would put the ref after each entry of a reward (e.g., "Stone has been nominated for an Academy Award[1], two British Academy Film Awards[2][3], and two Golden Globe Awards[4][5]". and so on, that way it's not 17 refs or however many at the end of a sentence). If no other source states that she won those two BAFTAs and Golden Globes, than where did IMBD get their information? Who's to say they aren't lying? (By the way, the "list of awards" article has the sources.) Also, just because one article does it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's okay here. --JDC808 ♫ 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about I just remove the section (it does not state anything new anyway) and link it to in the media section, which is after all about honors and award polls. FrB.TG (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do it that way, that's fine. --JDC808 ♫ 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, done. FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of my points have been addressed. As I said earlier, there wasn't anything else that I saw. I am happy to Support this article's promotion. P.S. I also have the God of War video game series up for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 20:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90

Very well-written. Some concerns:

Replaced with another review by The Daily Telegraph which talks about her monologue (almost every other review talks about her presence in that particular scene).
Please refer to the above discussion with JDC808. FrB.TG (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it in the filmography section, where it is better suited, though a separate section mentioning her notable awards would be even better. Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done. Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

Hi FrB.TG. The prose is in great shape, and I'm quite sure I'll be supporting. I would just like to maybe spot-check a few references. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Numerounovedant

Just a very minor suggestion

"Her mother was diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and was cured in 2008." = her "cancer" was cured.

Rest the article is really well written! Good job! It's a Support. NumerounovedantTalk 08:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've not been around FAC for a long time, and maybe expectations have changed, but I'm surprised to find seven supports for this article after a week. On prose alone, this cannot be FAC standard unless, as I say, expectations have changed remarkably. I also have a few concerns about the content of this article. I have no intention of providing a line-by-line review with fixes to be made but I think the authors need to take a close look at this one. Here are some examples only. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what do you want me to do about it. I can't think of rewording it or a synonym for the word "actress". Besides, repetition can be found everywhere.
FrB.TG, please think about what you just said: "I don't know what do you want me to do about it". FAC reviewers will often suggest ways to solve prose problems, but it's not their obligation; we're reviewing, not copyediting. And "repetition" is not everywhere in good writing, unless there's a good reason for it. Here are several ways around this problem just to show that it can be done -- I'm not suggesting any of these is the best way to go, and in fact I think two of these have other problems. (1) "Emma Stone is an American actress, and one of the most highly-paid in the world. She has been nominated..." (2) Move the statement that she is highly paid to the end of the lead, as part of a summary of her career. (3) Move the statement to the end of the second sentence. This sort of re-working of material to balance rhythm, structure, and repetition, and to give a natural-feeling flow to the prose is part of producing high-quality Wikipedia articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, rephrased.
Why not?
What else would you expect in a biography of an actress like her?
The material in that paragraph is:
  1. First starring role and the nominations for it
  2. Two subsequent roles, one a well-received film
  3. Two films in which she received critical praise
  4. Oscar nod for Birdman
  5. Broadway debut
Of these, I'd say items 1, 4, and 5 clearly belong in a summarizing paragraph, and the order you have them in is right. Items 2 and 3 feel a little random; what's the basis for picking them? I particularly don't see why you single out Crazy, Stupid, Love; it's not her next film after Easy A, and you don't say it was better-received than her other movies. As for The Help, was her part well-received too? If you have sources that make it clear what her best performances are from Easy A on, then that's a natural way to structure the middle of the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have rephrased some words, perhaps reads better now?

Moving on from the lead, just some random observations:

Why not? I can see some huge paragraphs covering about inspirations of music artists. And this is just a line about who has inspired her.
It's always nice to cover some background information on films an actor stars. Otherwise it would be the usual "played xx, was praised, won awards, box office success".

I am prepared to revisit this (though please ping me as I'm not around as much as I once was) and I'm pretty flexible, but I think this needs a lot of work. And just to reiterate that these are examples, and I suspect I could find many more if I looked through more carefully. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While some of your points were good, and I thank you for taking time to review this, I think it was just you being a little bit demanding. If you refer to other featured biographies, the structure and overall representation is pretty much the same. I urge you to take a look at articles of its kind before you choose to continue with your review. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of continuing my review at the moment. This does not meet the FA standards, in my opinion. That other articles are the same structure does not make this one good, and if you look carefully, I have not questioned the structure. I suspect the prose and sourcing of these other articles to be better, but you haven't named any. And if you do, yes WP:OTHER. I do rather know my way around FAC, and I have read and reviewed many articles. If you aren't prepared to accept criticism, so be it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully prepared for criticism when I nominate an article for FA, after all that's all it is for. I could name some articles of its kind (and someone of her generation) -- Josh Hutcherson and Sonam Kapoor (an article I wrote myself). Oh and I don't know what issue do you have with sourcing. I think the article is very well sourced. FrB.TG (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have described "breakthrough", "garner", the paragraphs about her roles and the likes as trivia; I don't know what else do you expect in the bio of up-and-coming actress like her. These are all the part of an actor's life. I am not sure how used you are to reviewing a film related article (and I am not questioning your experience), but this is how generally an actress' article is written. Again, what do you want me to write about in, say third para of the lead, which you consider trivial? The para discusses her films and the nature of her roles, which is perfectly natural for an actor's article. FrB.TG (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: After rereading my replies to your comments, I realize that they were very rude, for which I would like to apologize. I am not sure what could change your mind, but would you be kind enough to revisit this nomination. I would be really grateful to you. FrB.TG (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's of a UK-based IP that occasionally reviews FA nominations. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TonyTheTiger
The review is for her performance in the film, not her cover.
I slapped in the wrong title. I meant The House Bunny. I am just a bit worried that you are giving us a single positive quote rather than summarizing that her reviews were generally positive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that I could even find this. This was an easily dismissed role, and there was no mention of her in other sources.
clarified FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any commentary about Stone?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certain sources do mention it as a memorable role of hers, but there is no critical commentary on her performance that is mentionable or quotable. FrB.TG (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per above.
I don't think it was a particularly notable role, so it's probably not a good idea to add so much about it.
You should state what her role was.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she was reviewed it is your responsibility to summarize those reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I could find any review mentioning her.
Again you should state her role.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
stated FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is only the review quotable or worthy of mention. There were only few reviews discussing her supporting role and/or performance.
Is that really necessary to discuss overall reaction of critics towards her every film? Besides, it's very difficult to find a source that discusses review round-up of her performance in certain film.
I am off the opinion that if she was critically reviewed in WP:RSs for any role you are suppose to summarize those reviews unless space is a consideration (the article gets well past 60k and probably towards 100k characters of readable prose).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added some negative reviews. FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the former was criticized, but her performance was generally well-received, as we can see in the source 78.
When I use the word criticism, it may be positive or negative. This paragraph is improved now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It comprises only a few line, which I don't think will make a para.
This is definitely a separate idea and should be a distinct paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Is that really necessary for two two commercial failures? Besides, I have the whitewashing criticism. FrB.TG (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are of the opinion that you are only suppose to summarize successful activities, I must Oppose this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that for the films you ask to summarize critically her performance, they were all supporting roles and easily dismissed. There were very few reviews mentioning her, so it's hard to say "overall positive/negative" based on two-three reviews. Anyway, I have added the overall reaction for the films I could find sources and have added negative reaction. I also have resolved the rest of your comments.
@TonyTheTiger: I have managed to add the critical commentary for almost all of the films. Please take a look. FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved your comments as for the concern for tense, I have replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5. FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am watching that discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax – . Hi, FrB.TG. I have made several edits to help make Emma Stone's article suitable for a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back and I will !vote soon. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 10:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax! I am satisfied with the changes you have made. FrB.TG (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Checkingfax:! Do you have any further thoughts? FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This FAC has had a source review and spot-check of sources. A user opposed, raising some valid concerns, who has made it clear that they are not willing to not continue with their review. It currently has ten supports, including two after the oppose. Do you think there is consensus for closure just yet? FrB.TG (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GRuban[edit]

Oppose, basically backing Sarastro's comments, this is poorly written. Just some examples from a brief skim of just the first, Early life, section (I am quite sure I can find more later):

Not really, it's about her growing up. Moved to second para.
Because in this one she gave a large statement about her past and the interviewer is quite notable, too.
Removed the other two relationships, but her affair with Andrew Garfield attracted wide media attention.

More:

Thank you for your comments. While its writing might be short of FA at places, I look forward to more of your comments so that I can improve it more. FrB.TG (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Oppose, on prose grounds. Since there is a discussion of some specific prose issues above, I'll add comments there. Sarastro1, if you'd prefer I move my comments to a separate section, rather than interspersing them with yours, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some comments above. I'll add a couple more comments below, just to make it clear that the problems are not restricted to what's been pointed out already.

-- I'm going to stop there as I think there is plenty of evidence this needs substantial work on prose. I'll revisit if you ask me to (no need to ping me; I'm watching the page) but please don't restrict the fixes just to the points I've listed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a never-ending discussion with a support followed by an opposed followed by a support and so on. I have resolved those concerns of yours (alongside some other ones which I noticed myself). I would be very happy if you revisit, though this does not seem to have a good chance due to the contrasting thoughts of the reviewers. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the fixes you've made, and scanned the rest of the article; I'm going to leave my oppose standing, I'm afraid, as I still think the prose is not at the level it needs to be for FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking whether or not the prose is up to par. I was rather asking if you could post more comments. Anyway, it seems like an mpossible task to satisfy every reviewer here. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. FAC is not for everyone. FrB.TG (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More