Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amy Adams/archive1

Add links
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2017 [1].

Amy Adams[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you unfamiliar with the lovely Amy Adams, I hope that reading this article makes you exclaim, "Now that's a proper introduction!" The biography of a perfect lady must be perfect, and I look forward to all the help I can get in giving Miss Adams her next shiny star. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Comment fantastic work, although one is allowed only one nomination at a time, and another as a co-nominator. Considering the Chastain FAC is nearing closure, it might not be a big deal. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, have the rules been tweaked? I remember when we could nominate a second article when the first has adequate support for promotion. Anyway, thanks for the positive feedback. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it was always like this. ”An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them.” That rule that you referred to applies to WP:FLC. I’ll be along shortly for the review of the article. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Looking forward to your comments.
I would also highly appreciate it if you could look at the ref formatting for the Chastain FAC, since that's the only thing remaining before its closure. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a gentle reminder, FrB.TG. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get your ping and sorry for taking forever to review this but Scarlett Johansson's (which is also at FAC) expansion kept me really busy. Let's see what we have here.

  • I would perhaps mention her six BAFTA nods in the lead, looks like something worth including.
  • "She subsequently sought out stronger female parts and played them to positive reviews" - perhaps would be better (or more simple) to just state, "She subsequently played stronger female parts to positive reviews".
  • "She did not "have a strong religious pull towards the church" " I think you could simply state that she did not strongly believe in the church.
  • "kid" is somewhat informal. Child should be more preferable.

Down to the end of Early life, the rest tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: done. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. (Also, excellent work with Johansson. I'll be posting my comments on its FAC shortly.) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to that.
  • "her experience on the film as a "huge confidence booster", but despite" - probably not a good idea to place a conjunction right after another one. Also consider breaking up the sentence.
  • "Writing for the Houston Chronicle, Amy Biancolli wrote" - write ... write
  • "Adams took another "fierce woman" part after The Fighter in" - The Fighter bit can be cut without detriment.
  • "male-female friendship, which she believed was rare in film" - indeed!
(You've seen the film, right? It's so beautiful!) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have, but only recently (perhaps mainly because of Adams and maybe Johansson). It is indeed.

That's it, excellent work! – FrB.TG (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: thank you, all done. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a lovely article for a lovely actress. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Changedforbetter[edit]

Amy Adams has been one of my absolute favourite actresses since the days of Enchanted, and after reading all the way through this several times simply for the fun of it and because it is one of the best-written prose I've ever read, it has my full support.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's such a lovely thing to hear. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

The writing here is excellent, and the article appears to be comprehensive. I have a small number of questions and suggestions.
Early life
  • ¶1 "After quitting from the army," – Tighten to "After leaving the army,"?
  • ¶3 "Although she did track and gymnastics..." – Maybe "competed in" rather than "did"?
1994–2004: Dinner theater and early screen appearances
  • ¶1 "made false accusations about her" – This is a bit of a tease. What were the accusations? If you don't think the accusations belong in the article, better not mention them at all.
Okay so this is what the source says: “One of these girls told the director just straight-out lies about me, totally smeared me, and we had been really good friends. I never really knew what the lies were. I only knew I kept getting called in and lectured about my lack of professionalism.… It was me against her, and she had woven a really wonderful web.” It fits in with the narrative of her hating the job and being sacked for it, so I think it's important to mention this.--Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but perhaps you could insert: " 'I never really knew what the lies were,' she said." right after "made false accusations about her to the director." This would eliminate the tease. Finetooth (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Included the quote, "I never really knew what the lies were. I only knew I kept getting called in and lectured about my lack of professionalism." to give it context. Thanks for the suggestion. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶5 "but despite the film's success and the critic Todd McCarthy of Variety commending her "warm presence", it failed to launch her career." – A bit awkward because "success" and "commending" are not parallel parts of speech. Suggestion: "but despite the film's success and praise for her "warm presence" from Todd McCarthy, a critic for Variety, her performance failed to launch her career." Or something like that.
Personal life
  • ¶3 "The following year, she attended a charity event to raise funds for sexually abused children at the UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica." – I'd recommend rearranging this slightly to make the meaning more clear, assuming that it's the event and not the children that are at the med center. Suggestion: "The following year, she attended a charity event at the UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, to raise funds for sexually abused children."
Media image and acting style
  • ¶1 "understanding of her character's psychology by creating their back-story" – Singular-plural mismatch. Maybe "the charcter's back-story" would be better even though it repeats the word "character".
  • ¶5 "Adams was made the face of Lacoste's fragrance named Eau de Lacoste in 2012, and two years later, endorsed Max Mara's accessories campaign." – Missing word, "she", before "endorsed"?
  • ¶5 "In 2015, the actress collaborated with Max Mara to design and promote a line of handbags." – I was surprised by this second Max Mara sentence. Maybe it would help to be more specific about "accessories" in the previous sentence.
Done, except for that one point.
Thanks, Finetooth for your helpful suggestions. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All good except for one further suggestion about the false accusations. Switching to support on prose, as noted above, and leaving that last suggestion to your discretion. Very well-done and interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Finetooth. Took your suggestion about the "accusations", as noted above. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • "when her father was stationed for the United States Army" -> "when her father was stationed with the United States Army
  • "Adams was raised a Mormon in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until her parents' divorced in 1985 and left the church." So both her parents left the church? What about Amy and her siblings?
Their kids were really little when they left the church, and from her interviews, it seems that Amy and her siblings simply followed suit. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This really made me laugh. Changed it. :D
  • The muppets are not animation, they're puppets.

Must have been tough deciding on which image to use in the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: thanks for your comments. She looks adorable in the infobox image, doesn't she? But then, she always does. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

I watched Arrival a couple of weeks ago after seeing this nomination and I loved it; thanks for the tip! I thought the least I could do was give this a read through. :) I have just a handful of comments; nothing too vexing:

  • Punctuation should generally go outside of quote marks unless the punctuation is integral to the quote (MOS:LQ)
  • What's a "subject satire"?
Refers to a short film, but I've removed the "subject". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence She was cast in the supporting part of a promiscuous cheerleader; the film starred Kirsten Dunst, Ellen Barkin, and Kirstie Alley, and is a satire on beauty pageants. feels a little sloppy, like a series of random facts and the last clause feels like it was just tacked on. It needs work to improve the flow.
Tweaked. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her character's personality was far removed from her own Be wary of making statements like that in Wikipedia's voice; I'd suggest something like "Adams felt her character's personality was..."
Yep. Changed. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • she worried about how people would perceive her Her personally or her character?
Her personality. She worried that people would think of her as "promiscuous". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You over-use "saw"; I know you're trying to avoid bland and repetitive sentence structure, but 2009 fantasy adventure film Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, starring Ben Stiller, saw Adams portray is sloppy and too informal. (I was going to let you off for The 2008 Sundance Film Festival saw the release, but I'll mention it as another example).
Changed, for the Smithsonian sentence. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sports drama The Fighter I'd suggest "boxing drama" here; it's just as concise but the reader doesn't have to click to find out what the film is about
Yep. Done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the birth of her daughter prompted Adams to find strength in the passive character "However" is a word to watch and for some reason one that seems to attract disproportionate attention at FAC (I replaced one earlier in the article). I'd let you off for this one—I think it's perfectly reasonable to highlight her change of heart—but just be aware.
Yep, I've had that happen in a few prior nominations. Thanks for the tip, but I've kept the "however" for now. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several publications expressed disappointment Several publications, or do you think several writers might be better? I'll leave this one to your judgement.
Changed to journalists. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does She finds little value in the length of a part mean?
She means the size of her role. Do you think that's a better way to put it? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few edits, mostly for prose, that you might want to check

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable comments and your helpful tweaks. I'm also very pleased that the nomination prompted you watch Arrival. It's a film that resonated deeply with me. I hope that after the reading this article, you can watch a couple more of her films. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yo're very welcome. I enjoyed reading it. I'm happy with your responses, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Lead:

  • "She was not academically inclined and trained to be a ballerina. At age 18, she found musical theater to be a better fit, and from 1994 to 1998, she worked in dinner theater." The first of these sentences could be ambiguous if one attaches "not" to both "inclined" and "trained". Also, "not academically inclined" may be too much detail for the lead. May I suggest something like "She trained to be a ballerina, but at age 18 found musical theater to be a better fit, and from 1994 to 1998, she worked in dinner theater."
  • "The Public Theater's revival" → "the Public Theater's revival" per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Names_.28definite_article.29.

Early Life:

  • "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" → "the Church..." Moisejp (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1994–2004:

  • "The A.V. Club" → "the A.V. Club"
  • "Adams next had a supporting role in Psycho Beach Party (2000), a horror parody of beach party and slasher films, in which she played the teenage nemesis of a movie star (played by Kimberly Davies).[23] She played the part as a homage to the actress Ann-Margret." Minor comment: Flows not bad, but if you could avoid using "played" two sentences in a row it could be even better. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2005–2007:

  • "Disillusioned by her firing from Dr. Vegas, Adams, at 30 years old, considered looking for an alternate career after finishing work on the independent comedy-drama Junebug, which had a production budget of under $1 million." A little bit long (lots of commas and clauses) and a little unclear. It sounds like she was fired from Dr. Vegas but got the part in Junebug, and while filming the movie was thinking it would be her last before changing careers, but maybe this could be clearer. Also, it's implied but not explicitly said later that she changed her mind due to the success of Junebug.
I didn't want to overstate it because there wasn't a direct quote from her saying that "Junegug made me change my mind about quitting". But I did put in a sentence later, saying that: "By 2006, the awards season success of Junebug helped increase interest in Adams' career". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "loquacious pregnant woman": "loquacious" is used both in the lead and here, but I would argue it is quite an uncommon word. Suggest replacing at least one instance with a more common word ("talkative"?). Moisejp (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: thank you for the comments. All done, so far. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like your change about Junebug, it makes things clearer. Thank you. I'll continue reviewing the rest of the article very soon. Moisejp (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2012:

  • "The organization depicted in the film was deemed to be based on Scientology; Adams considered the comparison to be misleading but was glad for the attention the film brought to it." Not very clear. Who deemed it to be based on Scientology? And in the second part "it"=Scientology? Does this mean she's against Scientology and was glad the film got people discussing some of its negative aspects?
For the first part, I've added another ref and tweaked it a bit. Is that better now?
As for point two, it does seem like she's against Scientology, although she didn't really come out and say so explicitly. It's clearly implied though, isn't it? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although not a believer in method acting, Adams believed that the intense role had left her tense in her personal life." Minor suggestion but "intense" and then "tense" in the such close proximity brings unnecessary attention to itself. Could you change one of the words?

2013–present:

  • "When she was first offered the part a decade ago, she passed on it to avoid playing another naive woman." should this be "a decade earlier"? Also readers may be curious why the film project was apparently shelved or postponed for a decade. Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...this is a tricky one. The reason I included the "decade ago" part was because it was during the mid-2000s that she was being typecast in the "naive, innocent woman" parts, and she passed on Big Eyes to avoid another one of those roles. If you look at the production history of Big Eyes, you'll see that the project was greenlit with multiple actors and directors for over a decade before Tim Burton and Adams attached themselves to it. Though that would be too much detail for Adams' bio, wouldn't it? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life:

  • "She has spoken about suffering from insecurity and lack of confidence from a young age and later discussed how motherhood had made her calmer." The grammar here of present perfect ("has spoken") followed by simple past in the same time line ("later discussed") seems dubious to me. Maybe just "She has spoken about suffering from insecurity and lack of confidence from a young age and about how motherhood had made her calmer." That could be one way to rephrase it. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media image and acting style:

  • "She finds little value in the length of a part and is drawn towards both leading and supporting roles." I'm not sure what the first part of this means. Possibly it means that when deciding roles she is not concerned with how many lines in the script the character has? Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my first read-through and enjoyed the article thoroughly. I'm quite sure I'll be supporting, but would just like to do one more quick read-through before the end to see if any other small issues happen to jump out at me. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: thank you for your valuable suggestions. And yes, please do let me know if anything else jumps out. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

  • I'm still not sure the Scientology part is clear enough. If you feel strongly it is clear enough ("clearly implied"), then okay. But if there is any doubt, I would take that part out.
I guess you feel this way because she doesn't outright say that the film brings attention to the negative aspects of scientology. But that's okay IMO. She rightfully said that it brings attention to the organization. Whether positive or negative is for the audience to judge, right? The film simply shines a spotlight on it. (Even though I feel that she implied it as a criticism.)--Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "decade ago" wording still feels awkward to me. Is there another way to word it? Maybe "mid-2000s" like you wrote above?
  • Could you put the extra detail into a footnote about how Big Eyes was postponed multiple times? I would argue that if (the currently included) information leaves readers wondering, it's not good. And if it's too much detail in the main body of the article, it can be put in a footnote.
Right, so I've gone ahead and removed the "decade ago" part because I went back and looked at the source and it wasn't explicitly clear when she was offered the part. We only know that it was before the birth of her child (so that's pre-2010). This removes the ambiguity of the decade-long production halt, I hope. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you tweaked "She finds little value in the length of a part and is drawn towards both leading and supporting roles." Thank you for that. But sorry, I didn't specify before but the "finds little value" part of the sentence also feels imprecise to me. Could you try to reword that?
I did. Is that better? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: In discussing Arrival, I noticed the word intelligent/intelligence is used three times. Could you reduce this by at least one, or two if it's doable (I'll leave it to you to decide the best balance).
  • "In her next two releases—the science fiction film Arrival and the psychological thriller Nocturnal Animals—Adams played "emotionally guarded, fiercely intelligent" women to positive reviews."
  • "She was drawn. to the idea of playing an intelligent female lead and connected with the film's theme of unity and compassion."
  • "and Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times believed that the film was a "showcase for her ability to quietly and effectively meld intelligence, empathy and reserve"."
Since two of those are in quotes, I've changed the second occurrence of the word. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed this, minor comment: "Adams found little resemblance between herself and her "poised" and "aloof" character and modeled Susan's personality on that of Ford.[113] Stephanie Zacharek of Time found the film to be visually arresting yet thematically weak, but praised Adams and Gyllenhaal for making their character's pain seem genuine." Two sentences in a row with "found". If you could replace one, that would be great.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: all done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I’ll say again that I enjoyed reading this article a lot. I’m only a little familiar with Adams’ work (though what I’ve seen, such as Her and American Hustle, I enjoyed very much) and this article makes me want to see more of her films. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Moisejp. :) I'm glad you enjoyed it. Do watch more of her films, especially my favorites: Arrival, The Master, Julie & Julia, Doubt, and Junebug. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2017 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Amy_Adams/archive1&oldid=1143876979"