Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Angelina Jolie/archive1

Angelina Jolie
Self-nomination. I wrote/rewrote big parts of the article in the last months and I think it now offers a comprehensive look at a very popular topic. The article has been peer reviewed (Peer review/Angelina Jolie/archive1) in August. The article includes a rather broad section for her children, since it has been decided these articles should be merged into their mother's page (here, here and here). -- EnemyOfTheState 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment, as I've not read it in full yet (but so far I'm impressed): I think the "children" section actually fits in quite nicely, and is surprisingly well written. However, I would say if an otherwise FA quality is being brought down in quality by an AFD decision the AFD decision should be ignored. Specifically, if you feel that the article is too long with this section in place, split the section out into one new article covering all 3 of her children. --kingboyk 20:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think much of the children part of the article (in addition to the tatoos) suffers from embarassing and unencyclopedic trivial detail.--Peta 01:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the children section offers so much unencyclopedic trivial detail, there is a "Suri Cruise" section on the FA Katie Holmes that is twice as long as any of the children's sections in this article. The tattoo section is rather popular and was even copied by other websites. It's at the very end of the text and doesn't disrupt the prose. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are far too many images claiming Fair Use. The inline citations start strong, but drop off halfway through Humanitarian Work.  Commas are lacking throughout.  It seems comprehensive, but I'm not sure it "stays tightly focused".  Does seem to delve too much into the children, who could all be summarized in one section.  Referencing is sporadic; in spite of an abundance of citations, sporadic statements are strangely unattributed.  "In an interview with People she and her brother stated that, being children of divorcees, they relied on one another and because of that they hold on to each other as a means of emotional support."  Uncited.  Children of divorcees?  Why are the children's names bolded in the lead?  Prose is informal: "Now roles started coming fast for Jolie."  Contains external jumps. The lead goes into a lot of detail, without providing a compelling overview of the article.  I don't think this article is quite ready for FAC;  a more detailed peer review might help.   Sandy 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The inline citiations don't just drop off halfway through Humanitarian Work, but the individual field trips are cited via "Field Missions" in the Reference section; otherwise entire paragraphs would have footnotes for every sentence, which seemed excessive. The children's names are bold because all three redirect there and the article is a substitute for their own articles. I wasn't aware that two external jumps are considered a problem (could be easily removed). The lead focuses on her acting career, which I considered appropriate, but all other themes of the article are briefly touched (relationships, media, children, humanitarian work). -- EnemyOfTheState 11:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the following reasons:
 * 1) Introducing Jolie as "Academy Award-winning" is POV, because it emphasizes her career-highlights before the reader knows that she's an actress.
 * 2) *I will remove it, if that is actually WP policy/consensus, but I doubt it is. There are several FA with such an intro (Henry Fonda, Uma Thurman). Plus, is stating a fact really POV?
 * 3) **The lead section in the Uma Thurman is ridiculously short and should warrant FA review. All articles do not have to follow one another, which would result in carbon copies more than a collaborative effort. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) The lead informaion box is too long; why is there a field stating her "career milestones"? It's also POV to assume her career-best roles without support from critics or notes/references. Please remove this.
 * 5) There are a lot of images. The public domain ones can stay, but how many of those fair use-claimed screenshots are required?
 * 6) *Using screenshots to illustrate the career of an actor is pretty common. It might be reasonable to remove one or two of the screenshots, but deleting all of them will only hurt the quality of the article IMHO.
 * 7) **I never asked you to remove them all; one or two non-public domain images would be fine. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Some sentences are obscure, including: Jolie has gone on record as saying that a positive effect resulting from the large number of tattoos on her body is that, while she is not opposed to film nudity, filmmakers have been forced to become more creative when plotting any nude or love scenes involving her.
 * 9) Please reverse the filmography so that it's chronological.
 * 10) *I know this an ongoing argument, but Manual of Style (lists of works) lists both orders as equal options. There are also FA examples using reversed order (Julia Stiles), not to mention pretty much every movie site (IMDb, Rottentomatoes, etc.). I'm not sure if that is a valid point of objection.
 * 11) **This is an encyclopedia article and not an unorganized fan-gush bloated film listing (IMDb). This is a very valid objection. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) ***I reversed the filmography and the sentence mentioned above has been rephrased, though I guess you have concerns about other sentences as well? -- EnemyOfTheState 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) ****Actually, I don't. It seems to be well-written in most parts, but perhaps you could copy-edit some of it? It's not a major objection though, so I'm going to scratch that portion too. Never Mystic (tc) 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Are three separate sections chroniciling Jolie's children really necessary?
 * 15) *As mentioned above all three articles of her children redirect to Angelina Jolie. So this basically helps people who were only searching for information for any of the children. I doubt that deleting the sub-headlines or combining the section helps the layout. -- EnemyOfTheState 21:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) **They should be trimmed, because they're long. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) ***I took out a few sentences, though I won't cut it down significantly, unless there is a clear consensus for it. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) ****Looking at it now, it seems all right, but I'm not entirely happy with its length. There's a lot of excessive information, including where one of her children lived before she adopted him/her, debate on the original mother of one of her children, the first offering of Shiloh's photos, and more. It all seems like too much. Never Mystic (tc) 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Never Mystic (tc) 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Concerns above have been addressed. "Children" is fine as it is, all three children are pretty notable with a considerable celebrity (as established in the text); only reliable sources are cited, no tabloid stories, and half of the section doesn't deal directly with the children anyway, but rather with the adoption procedure, legal problems, citizenship or media attention. The AfD discussion for Shiloh was almost split evenly, the amount of information is justified. Sloan21 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it's mostly good, but has some problems.
 * language could be made more formal in some areas - "She started a life of fast-living and active self-loathing", "Jolie later explained this is how she got interested in acting, not from her father","designed to seduce her way into the headquarters of her creators' rivals and blow up." (?). etc.  It needs a good copyedit, and the word "Superstardom" is horrendously POV and reeks of a bad fan magazine.  Do we have to use such superlatives?  She is a highly successful actress.  That's sufficient.
 * I don't see a big problem with the first two sentences and right now I can't think of an elegant way to make them more "formal". I changed your third example. I don't agree with your objection to "superstar". I understand from your user page you don't like these phrases in general (Things that annoy me ... The word "megastar"), but I actually consider it an acurate description. Her popularity is established in the media section, plus superstar doesn't necessarily have a positive connotation anyway. I don't mind if another headline is use, but "highly successful actress" is certainly not suitably.
 * I can't think of an elegant way to make them formal either but "active self-loathing" sounds more like pop psychology than encyclopedic description.   "Superstardom" is one of my pet hates (as per my user page, yes).  The thing I dislike about it, is that it is a meaningless superlative that is thrown around so freely that whatever slim definition the word once had, has been lost through overuse and misuse.  I think Jolie is a superstar, and one of the best current examples of one, but in an encyclopedic context, I think we can do better than regurgitate what a lot of fan magazines have been saying.  I hadn't considered your point that the word might not have only a positive connotation - that's very perceptive, but I think the duality of it would be lost on many readers, as it was lost on me.   "Highly successful actress" is obviously bad (worse, in fact).  Something as simple as "Mainsteam success" would be clean, accurate and neutral.    Just a suggestion. The previous headers are without unnecessary hyperbole so why not this one?  I'll put my money where my mouth is and try to find alternatives for some of the phrases that bother me, but I'll leave the header to you lest the article suffers from my biased loathing of the word "superstar".  ;-) And if you prefer to keep it, that's fine with me. OK?  Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and copyedited what I thought needed to be changed. Most edits were in the early life and early career sections.  I've changed wording, but I've tried not to change the intent. I hope it's ok. Rossrs 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for copyediting the entire article, excellent work. Regarding the "Superstardom" headline, I considered "International success", though that wouldn't be precise, since she had her first worldwide success in 1999. Calling her "highly regarded" is more POV than that sub-header though; or maybe it's just me ;) -- EnemyOfTheState 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The section about the children is basically OK. I think it's a little too detailed but it demonstrates the level of interest these lucky babies have stirred up.  It's better than I thought it would be at first glance.    Having a subheading for each child is a mistake though.  One heading under which they are each discussed would be more appropriate.  The subheaders increase the size of the TOC and create the impression that, in an article about Angelina Jolie, there is detailed discussion of three people who are not Angelina Jolie.  Not a good thing.   They may be her kids, but so what : we don't, for example, have subheaders for each of her husbands, or Brad Pitt, or Jon Voigt, who are all more "famous" than any of the children.
 * I removed the headlines, not sure if this will resolve this issue.
 * Absolutely. I think that's all that was needed there. Thank you. Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The section about the tattoos is far too detailed. It's sourced and it's accurate (I guess), but it's also irrelevant and unencylopedic.   The article does not need this level of trivia where each tattoo is described.  Suffice to say that she has tattoos and this can be covered in one or two sentences.
 * I removed the list, but turned a few into prose, since I don't consider them pure trivia, some reflect her character as well.
 * I think this strikes the right balance. Excellent.  The way you've written it now is far more engaging and more relevant than the huge list.  Again, thank you. Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are numerous quotations throughout and most of them are in standard quotation marks. Why is the Roger Ebert quote and the quotations under "Humanitarian work" shown using the Cquote format?  It should be consistent and stick to one format or the other.  (But there are far too many quotations to consider using Cquote throughout the article anyhow).
 * These are pull-quotes as discribed in Template:Cquote and they are not meant to be formated in the same way as the other quotes. This seems to be common practice, used in several FA (Alpha Phi Alpha, Diane Keaton, Katie Holmes, etc.). Not sure what the problem is exactly.
 * It could be my misunderstanding. I don't understand why a pull quote would be used for Ebert but not for (for example) Variety.   If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but to me it looks odd.
 * Well, the idea is obvious: to have a few interesting quotes as an eye catcher for readers who just have a quick look. Ebert, the most famous film critic in the U.S., with a comment on her Oscar winning role seems appropriate. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We have a Commons image Image:2005 06 15 rice-jolie 600.jpg to illustrate the "Humanitarian work" section so the two fair use images are superfluous and should be removed. Image:NotesFromMyTravels.jpg should go - the book is mentioned in the article but it's not discussed, and certainly not to the point that a book cover is needed.  Image:Jga.jpg assumes fair use although a fair use rationale is not provided.  We already know what Jolie looks like, and as far as I can see,  this only shows us what she looks like while holding a passport.  It's not crucial to the article, adds nothing (but the passport), and therefore any fair use claim would fall apart.   Rossrs 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the book cover, though I don't really understand the problem with the other picture. It illustrates the key point of the section, the appointment by UNHCR, and the fair use claim is acceptable. The image was made and released to promote her involvement and the UN agency in general. I would think there is a 99% change UNHCR is actually happy if we use the picture. -- EnemyOfTheState 08:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * UNHCR is possibly happy. I can't imagine they would be unhappy. Who knows?  That's not the point and neither is the 1% chance that they are unhappy.  We should be using fair use images sparingly, almost as a last resort, and only when they convey something that is not conveyed or depicted adequately by the text or by other images.   If the image was of Jolie at work, or as part of a delegation, or with some official ... or showed her doing something relevant to the work, and that by seeing it we would understand more deeply what she was about, I would be the first one trying to ensure the image was kept.   The fact is this particular image shows two things - one,  Angelina Jolie and two,  a UNHCR passport.  We may not know what a UNHCR passport looks like, but we don't need to.  Therefore the image adds nothing to our understanding and it serves a decorative purpose.  I believe that for a featured article, every aspect of it must be above reproach.  Is there an image which shows Jolie more obviously in her role and doing more than just smiling for the camera?  Because if so, I think substituting such an image would greatly add to the article.   Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the image. Of course there are many pictures of her on field missions, e.g. on her UNHCR page -> photo gallery. But I'm not sure if these images could be justified as promo pictures. There are other images on Wikimedia Commons of her, but they all show her in Washington, similar to the one already displayed. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)