Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kirsten Dunst
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 SandyGeorgia 04:27, 7 March 2009 [1].
Kirsten Dunst[edit]
The article has been brought to GA status and one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?I note the concern above about the websites AND titles being in italics. Titles of newspapers/magazines should be in italics, the websites dont' need to be.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I don't know on the reliability of the source, I thought it was reliable, since it was one of the links that came up during a Google search. But, I've removed the source and formatted the references as well. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb is not a reliable source for this info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I don't know on the reliability of the source, I thought it was reliable, since it was one of the links that came up during a Google search. But, I've removed the source and formatted the references as well. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Comments Very minor points, there might not even be anything that needs fixing here.
- The film generated mostly critical reviews" I know in the vernacular, "critical" usually has a negative connotation, but it can also be used in a neutral sense, as in "a critical study of tree frogs". Very nit-picky, I know, but maybe it should be replaced with a word that has only negative connotations, like "negative" or something.
- Would "The film generated lukewarm reception" work?
- "She admitted that it was important to" Something about "admit" feels off to me; I know the dictionary definition is just "to acknowledge", but the word is most often used to connote an acknowledging of something secret or whatever ("He admitted that he still sucks his thumb") or to denote a concession in an argument etc ("He admitted the possibility that she was not really Mrs. McGillicuddy"). Maybe "She felt it important to" or something like that.
- "Done.
Ink Runner (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: It seems an age since I registered my support during the last nom, but there we are. I did a lot of copyedits during that process, having done a weak job at peer review previously. I am sure that the article can be nitpicked further, and I might even do a bit myself, but I have no qualms about confirming my support. The prose flows well, nothing of significance is left out, sourcing and imaging look good. Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Honestly, I'm surprised this didn't pass the first time. I could nit-pick a bit, but this is generally solid. One thing I noticed: Ref 33 has some oddities. It has a Web template (where else would it be from?) and claims that it's archived from a film fest site, but it's actually from IMDB, a site with questionable reliability. Might want to check that. Overall, however, I think this is an example of what we should be aiming for with our articles on celebrities. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the ref. with an IMDB one. The IMDB source is credible because it is accurate with the awards and nominations. Also, there was no other source I could find, that would be reliable, to include in the article, hence why the original ref. 33 was in stored. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I thought the article was interesting and struck an appropriate tone. Karanacs (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I'm afraid this article has major chronology issues - the sequence of films within each year is obviously reversed. Apparently, the article was written based on the IMDb filmography without realizing that they list the newest film first. While this might seem arbitrary in some instances, as the shooting and the release of films often overlap, it does create false statements throughout the text (e.g. she hasn't "next appeared" (= in theater) in Levity, because Mona Lisa Smile was released eight months later). Further, the text creates the misconception that she first appeared in Little Women and after that got her big break with Interview with the Vampire. This again is not correct, according to the IMDb Interview with the Vampire was both shot and released before Little Women. Also, shooting of Little Women began in April 1994, making her at least 11 years old, therefore the second sentence of the article already contains two big factual errors. EnemyOfTheState|talk 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Status on this oppose, please ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the info. in the in the lead and fixed the info. about Levity coming out first before Mona Lisa Smile. If there is anything else, please let me know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you contacted the opposer to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the Little Women–Interview with the Vampire timing, and her age when she shot the former? Both look unchanged to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've contacted the user regarding this and I've fixed the film order info. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The film order had been corrected in the text, but not in the lead. I have now fixed this so the lead and the text are consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but there are still problems remaining. Firstly, the filmography table should be changed to give the correct chronology (the order of films for each year has to be reversed). Then there is still the problem with her allegedly being 10 during shooting of Interview with the Vampire - according to the IMDb she was 11 during filming and 12 when the film was released. Kiki's Delivery Service is described as a 1997 film in the text, but is listed in 1998 in the filmography. The text discusses several films in the wrong order (The Cat's Meow - Get Over It, Wimbeldon - Spiderman 2); not necessarily a mistake as long as no timeline is established, but it's still strange. EnemyOfTheState|talk 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The age 10 is given in a quote from the an interview. If this is what Dunst said, then you can't change it, even though she gives her age wrongly. You could add a footnote saying "she was actually 11 when the film was made" - would that satisfy you on this point? Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not give her age of 12 at the film's release (Nov. 1994). It makes more sense anyway with the current wording; that's when she "gained recognition". EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've fixed the info. about Kiki, the film order, as mentioned above, and I fixed the film order in the filmography. If there's anything else, please let me know. Also, do you want me to change the age in the lead? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be best to change the age in the lead, since 12 definitely is her age for the time the film was released, while 10 appears to be wrong, even for the production process. And I hate to beat a dead horse here, but the film order in the filmography still is incorrect. The order for 1997 should be: The Outer Limits, Tower of Terror, Anastasia, Wag the Dog, True Heart (couldn't find a release date for that, I'm not sure that film is notable enough to be included); in 1999, The Devil's Arithmetic should come first; in 2000, Luckytown should come second after The Crow. Also, her 6 ER episodes are missing in the filmography, should be included after Mother Night in 1996. EnemyOfTheState|talk 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its alright, your just faulting what I missed. I've changed the age in the lead and I've fixed the film order and I added the ER episodes. Like above, if there's anything else, please let me know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the chronology problems have all been addressed. EnemyOfTheState|talk 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its alright, your just faulting what I missed. I've changed the age in the lead and I've fixed the film order and I added the ER episodes. Like above, if there's anything else, please let me know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be best to change the age in the lead, since 12 definitely is her age for the time the film was released, while 10 appears to be wrong, even for the production process. And I hate to beat a dead horse here, but the film order in the filmography still is incorrect. The order for 1997 should be: The Outer Limits, Tower of Terror, Anastasia, Wag the Dog, True Heart (couldn't find a release date for that, I'm not sure that film is notable enough to be included); in 1999, The Devil's Arithmetic should come first; in 2000, Luckytown should come second after The Crow. Also, her 6 ER episodes are missing in the filmography, should be included after Mother Night in 1996. EnemyOfTheState|talk 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've fixed the info. about Kiki, the film order, as mentioned above, and I fixed the film order in the filmography. If there's anything else, please let me know. Also, do you want me to change the age in the lead? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not give her age of 12 at the film's release (Nov. 1994). It makes more sense anyway with the current wording; that's when she "gained recognition". EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The age 10 is given in a quote from the an interview. If this is what Dunst said, then you can't change it, even though she gives her age wrongly. You could add a footnote saying "she was actually 11 when the film was made" - would that satisfy you on this point? Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but there are still problems remaining. Firstly, the filmography table should be changed to give the correct chronology (the order of films for each year has to be reversed). Then there is still the problem with her allegedly being 10 during shooting of Interview with the Vampire - according to the IMDb she was 11 during filming and 12 when the film was released. Kiki's Delivery Service is described as a 1997 film in the text, but is listed in 1998 in the filmography. The text discusses several films in the wrong order (The Cat's Meow - Get Over It, Wimbeldon - Spiderman 2); not necessarily a mistake as long as no timeline is established, but it's still strange. EnemyOfTheState|talk 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The film order had been corrected in the text, but not in the lead. I have now fixed this so the lead and the text are consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've contacted the user regarding this and I've fixed the film order info. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the Little Women–Interview with the Vampire timing, and her age when she shot the former? Both look unchanged to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you contacted the opposer to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the info. in the in the lead and fixed the info. about Levity coming out first before Mona Lisa Smile. If there is anything else, please let me know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally support, some smaller issues remain.
- I agree with a comment above that the two instances of "mostly critical reviews" show better be "mostly negative reviews"
- Done.
- I think calling Elizabethtown a box office "failure" is a bit harsh, maybe disappointment would be more appropriate.
- Done.
- It think it would be useful to point out that Marie Antoinette is not a typical historical drama, but a highly stylized film which takes great artistic liberties with the source material and has a totally anachronistic soundtrack
- I'm not sure what you mean.
- The $61m of Marie Antoinette is not the revenue outside the United States, but the worldwide gross (incl. the US). It's also questionable to call it a "international success"; with a 40m budget and 60m revenue it probably did not make its money back during the theatrical run (studios get about 55%)
- What would you like for me to do?
- The last image caption gives the full date, while the three other captions only mention the year. Also it shouldn't end with a period.
- I've removed the day, but left "April 2007", also I've removed the period.
- The text does not use the WP standard "U.S.", but "US" for United States
- I was going by this, but I've made the change.
- It might be debatable whether Lover's Prayer and True Heart are notable enough films to be included in the filmography. The IMDb has very little information on these films; both seem to be straight-to-video movies.
- I've removed them.
- I agree with a comment above that the two instances of "mostly critical reviews" show better be "mostly negative reviews"
EnemyOfTheState|talk 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A fine article, but a sea of blue, too 'facty' yet, and short of a narrative thread. I see great work here, but still the article seems a tad listy and still only gets as far as describing how "she did this and then she did that" in a cut and pasty way. I think most of the hard work is done by now in giving an outline, but a highter overview is still to be added to get to FA. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.