Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Williams (actress)/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2018 [1].

Michelle Williams (actress)[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article's first nomination had two supports on prose, successful source and image reviews, but did not attract much attention afterward. Hopefully, there are more eyeballs this time around. As directed, I'm pinging the reviewers from the previous nomination: Moisejp, Aoba47, and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed in terms of images since my last review of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba[edit]

I support this nomination for promotion as all of my concerns were addressed in the first FAC. Good luck with it this time around! Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a:

"Williams. Williams"—perhaps ", and was"?

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this comment. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sry, I used shorthand: Her surname is repeated, divided only by a point. Tony (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commas are sometimes a personal choice, but: "At 15, she gained emancipation from her parents, and she soon achieved"—it could read more smoothly as: "At 15 she gained emancipation from her parents, and soon achieved".
It's often a challenge to avoid too much of the subject's name in the lead. I've bolded the possible issues:
"... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). Williams followed this by featuring in low-budget films that were not widely seen, before achieving her breakthrough with the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned Williams her first Oscar nomination." ->
"... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). This was followed by [appearances in a number of? give number if easy to do, or just leave it as plural "films"? unsure] low-budget, low-profile films, before her breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her an Oscar nomination." Now, I've removed "first", which indicated more Oscar noms were to come. You might think it's important to flag this here. If not, we'll get to it later. Unsure.

Well, it was the first of her four Oscar nominations (and the only one I have highlighted in the lead). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what about something like: "This was followed by appearances in ?three low-budget, low-profile films; these led to a breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her the first of four Oscar nominations she would receive."

I've already mentioned the fact that she has four Academy Award nominations in the first paragraph, so we shouldn't repeat that information in the lead. I've changed "Oscar" to "Academy Award" to avoid any confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the latter"—look for nicer-sounding alternatives. It's a one-word title, so why not repeat it instead.
Next section: "a close bond with her father, who taught her fishing and shooting, and encouraged her to form a reading habit". Be aware of each sentence length, and the rhythm, when distributing commas (or not). Bumpiness versus avoidance of amibuity and easier parsing ... needs continual juggling. Fishing and shooting sound like university modules, and habit sounds like opiates. What about: "a close bond with her father, who taught her to fish and shoot, and encouraged her to become a keen reader." (or "encouraged her to read", unsure)

So, I wouldn't dismiss this in terms of cr. 1a, but it does need auditing throughout. I look at random and see things like: "Also that year, Williams played a small part ..."—why not "In the same year Williams played a small part ...". (Again, I balanced the subsequent, unavoidable comma in making that suggestion.) What made me think right here? I don't much like "also". Tony (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these excellent suggestions, Tony1. I'd appreciate any further help in tightening the prose. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... I see FAC as sampling, critiquing, encouraging, judging—rather than a full copy-editing service. Any fellow editors you might ask? And try printing it out and marking it up with a pen. Tony (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I wasn't asking for a "copy-editing service". I've written the article to the best of my abilities, having learnt tremendously from my past FACs on some of Williams' contemporaries. So if you or other kind reviewers could highlight problems, if any, in the prose that would prevent it from meeting our FA criteria ("critiquing" and "judging", as you perfectly put it), then that would be an ideal use of the FAC process. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the references, the point of the retrieval dates is so that readers can look up the webpage on archive.org when the link goes dead. Since you already include archive links in the cites, the retrieved-on dates serve no purpose and can be removed. Further they make the refs look extremely bulky and inelegant, as they now each have three (!) dates in them.—indopug (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug ok, I have removed them. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise[edit]

My support on prose from the previous nomination stands. Reading through the article again now, one minor point I noticed is about “On set, she and Gosling practiced method acting by largely avoiding the script and improvising several scenes.” If they were “largely avoiding” the script, that sounds like they improvised most of the movie, but then it says they only improvised “several scenes”. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moisejp, I've removed the “largely avoiding” the script" bit to avoid confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the next couple of days when I have time, I'll revisit my source review from the last nomination. Moisejp (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

For the first nomination, I did a lengthy source review including spot-checking about 50 sources. Looking at the edit history now, there are no changes that reduce my confidence in the sources. I was going to mention the points that Ealdgyth brought up here [[2]], but I see they have already been dealt with. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, Moisejp. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Bilorv[edit]

"To comply with their guidelines, she completed her high school education" – Her parents' guidelines, or legal emancipation requirements?
"After learning to trade under her father's guidance" – This sounds like it was happening at the time but the source indicates that Williams learned to trade while she was being homeschooled years prior. I suggest "Having learned to trade from her father" as a replacement.
"slasher film Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" – Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, either rephrasing or de-linking slasher film might be necessary.
"a parody about the Watergate scandal" – This sounds unnatural to me. Perhaps "a parody of the Watergate scandal" is better.
Would it be worth mentioning a bit more context to Dick? For instance, its WP page indicates to me that it received positive critical reception despite failing to be a financial success.
"a part that came closest to her personality" – Closer than what? Would "came close" suffice?
No reception to Williams' part specifically in The Station Agent is mentioned – did any critics single her out for praise or criticism?
For Land of Plenty, what character does Williams play and (as above) did any critics mention her specifically in reviews?
A Hole in One seems skimmed over, but Williams looks to have been in the main role from the WP page. Is there anything to say about the film's success (or lack thereof), or reception to Williams' performance?
Similar to above, is there anything more to say about The Hawk Is Dying?

Right, so in response to these comments, I'd like to say that it's quite common, in most FAs, to not detail all of the actor/actress's roles, especially the ones that haven't received much attention. As for these three films in particular, I haven't come across any unique or interesting factoids to warrant inclusion. Having said that, I have included a line about the commercial failure of Dick. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense. I highlighted these three films as it seemed Williams played a major part, but if there's not been much focus on them in reliable sources then the current level of detail is appropriate. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"which centers on a poor and lonesome young woman traveling with her dog and looking for employment" – This is Williams' character, right? This is a little bit ambiguous.
I found a source saying that Williams first saw a script for Blue Valentine when she was 21. This article begins at the point where she has had a daughter, so there are some gaps that need to be filled in here.

Yes, there's a ton of material there. The project, as with many other independent films, stayed in development hell for many years before getting made. I've highlighted the major aspects of the film's production, but I believe that in order to prevent Williams' biography from being excessively bloated, a lot of the additional information would be better suited in the film's article. What do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I understand this, but I think it would be good to have just a sentence at the start to let the reader know that Blue Valentine had been conceived of several years before, or that Williams had seen a script several years prior. If something else needs to be cut to make room for this, I think this is excessive detail for the pre-production stage, and the second sentence could be cut or shortened: "Before production began, Cianfrance had Williams and Gosling live together for a month on a stipend that matched their character's income. This exercise led to conflicts between them, which proved conducive for filming their character's deteriorating marriage." — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, you're right. I've added a sentence. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"tells the story of a free-spirited cabaret performer" – Is this the character that Williams played?
"wish to use her celebrity" – Should this not be "wish to use her celebrity status"?
"opened up about her relationship with Phil Elverum" – What exactly about her relationship did she talk about?

An excellent article overall; in particular, the prose flows really well, turning it into much more than just a chronological list of acting credits. I'll be happy to support once the points above have been fixed or addressed. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and for your excellent suggestions, Bilorv. I hope my explanations to some of them make sense. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response, and there's just one point above left to be resolved. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all my comments have been addressed and I believe the article meets the FA criteria. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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