Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jessica Chastain/archive1


 * 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) 11:11, 29 September 2016.

Jessica Chastain

 * Nominator(s): Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 08:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to a less stressful and more constructive review of Miz Chastain's biography. Happy reading. Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 08:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comments I've had a read of the "Media image" section, and have the following comments:
 * If the article has to discuss Chastain being good looking, please do this concisely. The current material on this topic is spread across the section, and somewhat repetitive. Please also consider what sources are and aren't worth quoting as there seem to be too many.
 * The third paragraph has a couple of lines that talk about her physical features and looks, and each of them are attributed to different sources.


 * ""timeless elegance ... almost incongruous for the current times"" - what this means is unclear.
 * Removed.


 * "Chastain specializes in portraying emotionally grueling roles and is drawn towards parts of strong but flawed women" - why does she have this preference?
 * Every performer is drawn towards certain roles, and these seem to be Chastain's preference according to the cited source. The only explanation for the preference is that she likes seeing flawed women represented on screen.


 * "Chastain is unique in being a Hollywood actress who overcame ageism to become a leading lady in her 30s" - is she really the only one ever?
 * Seems like one of the very, very few, per the cited reference.


 * "Harper's Bazaar opines" - other quotes are attributed to the authors of articles, and it seems a bit odd that this one is attributed to the magazine
 * Tweaked.


 * "Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012" - why? This seems a pretty significant honour, and is out of place in a para which mainly discusses her looks.
 * Due to her achievements of the year, which has been described in detail in her career section.


 * "and was named the celebrity endorser for a Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto" - was she not "hired" or similar for this role? Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tweaked.
 * Thanks for the comments, . Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 20:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Can we have a pic of Bryce Dallas side-by-side to clarify the viewers the differences between the two? Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, good one. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the lead image is weird to say the least. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it "weird"? She looks fresh as if issued to children on a beach. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 13:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
At a glance: impressive. Just minor issues:

Lead
 * Juliet, even with a link, is probably not known to all our readers, - perhaps specify as Shakespeare's Juliet?
 * For the same reason, I suggest to add the authors' last names to the Cherry Garden and Salome, especially since Salome (opera) may be better known. If she performed the part of Salome, that might come out. Consider the same for plays throughout the article, without me mentioning it each time. I don't know if something similar should be done about films, or if they are known by their title only.
 * I feel a bit of duplication in awards. The Golden Globe certainly doesn't two links within the lead, perhaps not even two mentionings.
 * I would separate her producer work from work for social issues, - two sentences.
 * Done, except for the second point. I'm not sure if we need to mention the author's name at each instance - we never do that in any actor's biography. I guess if readers want to know more about the play, they can easily click on the wikilink. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 08:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Plays and operas seem to work differently. In a recent death biography, I helped by adding all these composers' names, it was wanted. Some titles of operas (and plays?) are less well-known, composers are more familiar. We (project opera) just have the last name without a link, such as Verdi's Falstaff, also to differentiate from the character by Shakespeare and possible use in film etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, makes sense. Added them. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 09:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Early life ...
 * "but following years of drug abuse", - it remains first unclear if Monasterio or Juliet are meant.
 * I read first the quote about "not paying rent", then that she developed interest in acting at age 7, - the quote somehow seems to belong later.
 * The image of the Juillard School should come where studying is mentioned.
 * Done.

Early roles
 * "Despite written as a 16-year old", - you could say more clearly that Salome in the play is described as 16.
 * Done.

Need a break, will be back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time out to review this, . Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 08:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure to read, but it may take me until next week, - busy singing, need to improve Der 100. Psalm first, want to make that GA while it is on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool. No hurry. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 09:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2011: Breakthrough
 * "After struggling for a breakthrough in film for a number of years, in 2011 Chastain had six film releases", - say "..., Chastain had six film releases in 2011", there's no rush to the time because it's in the header.
 * "a drama about a troubled father (Michael Shannon) who tries to protect his family (Chastain played his wife) from an impending storm", - too many brackets holding up the flow. Perhaps 2 sentences, on plot, one actors?
 * Perhaps my lack of language, but "backs up with luminous concern" is nothing I would understand, - do we need this detail?
 * I'm confused about "her next role" and then read 2008, after the 2011s.
 * "She was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand" - we have to guess who "she" is, after the two characters were mentioned last.
 * "as good as [the cast] can be [...] they just can't quite pull it off" is another not too informative critic's line that doesn't help my understanding.

2014–15
 * I think that after you said she's the protagonist of Julie, you don't need "(Chastain)".

So much for the prose. Please add alt texts for the images, as the lead image has already. I prefer to have refs in a separate section, but no need to change it for me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All done. Thank you for the review, Gerda! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 08:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "During the film's opening weekend in North America, Chastain became one of the few performances to have leading roles in the top two films (Mama and Zero Dark Thirty) at the box office." I don't know what that means. Also: if the meaning is "ever", that's not right; think about films from the 20s through the 50s.
 * "which is expected to partner with Maven Pictures to develop the film adaptations of two books.": Say what has happened (such as: someone was hired, a contract was signed, or early production work has started) rather than saying what someone thinks might happen. If nothing relevant has happened so far, then delete this.
 * "and in 2013 she was placed in Maxim listing of the 100 hottest women in the world." Delete. Maxim is widely perceived as soft porn. Sure, if no one else was saying anything nice about her, this wouldn't be a problem, but in the paragraph it appears in, it makes her look pretty shabby.
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very enjoyable; this makes me want to rent her films. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad you liked it! She's an excellent actress and I'm sure you'll enjoy her work. Thank you for the review and the copy-edits, and I've addressed the three remaining concerns as well. Cheers! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 06:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits addressing these points are great, thanks. I'm getting Interstellar from Netflix. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marvelous film. Enjoy! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 16:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG
Haven't seen any of her films, but I find her to be an amazing actress from reading the text (and to state the obvious, she is gorgeous). Anyway, I've read down to the Early roles section; very well-written so far. Once you have replied to the comments, I will continue my review.
 * I see you are a bit choosy as to when you put a comma after "In [the year]". This is not a big deal, but you should be consistent.
 * "She said, "I used to cut..." To use the simple past, you need an explicit or implicit time marker (last month, yesterday, in 1999... or in this case, 2012). It needs to answer the question, "When did it happen?" If it doesn't answer the question, then the timeframe is vague, and the present simple or present perfect is more appropriate.
 * "She relocated to California, taking up residence in Venice Beach" - why not just Los Angeles, California? I mean do you need to be so specific?
 * "In 2004, Chastain took on the role of Anya" - Anya isn't a part of any literature nor a character of historic significance so I think you need to describe the role.
 * "Her performance was not well received by the critic Ben Brantley of The New York Times" - the newspaper also needs to be linked.
 * In the last para of the Early roles section, we are using "Chastain" a lot—some variety with "she" or other rephrasing might help this. And I notice that this is repeated throughout the article: do a Ctr-F search for Chastain and see how many come up. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, . I've addressed these concerns. Do let me know if I've missed out on something. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving on...
 * "After struggling for a breakthrough in film, Chastain had six film releases in 2011" - "film" in close proximity.
 * "came with the comedy-drama The Help" - I haven't seen the film, but is it a comedy-drama? From what I have seen on the internet, it seems to be a period drama or something.
 * "The ensemble of The Help won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Cast and Chastain received her first Oscar nomination" - I think that her nominations should be mentioned first since the latter is of more relevance to her, no?
 * The sentence works better this way IMO. Mention the win first, then the nominations. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "...and SAG nomination in the same category, all of which she lost to Spencer" - ref 8 does not mention the losing part.
 * "including the New York Film Critics Circle, the National Society of Film Critics and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association" - I think an indefinite article here is more appropriate since you are not specific about the award. ignore this comment
 * "in the drama The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (2013), in which she also served as producer" - or you could simply say "...which she also produced".
 * "critic A. O. Scott" -freelance or for a newspaper?
 * A. O. Scott is one of the most distinguished film critics. He writes for NYT now, but since the wikilink to him is present, I didn't add the newspaper to avoid repetition. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "had three releases" makes her sound like a producer or studio.
 * Quite common to say that an actor had "three film releases" in a year, isn't it? Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is and as a matter of fact, I myself used it in my articles but a reviewer for Emma Stone complained about it. A better way of saying it might be that she appeared in three films. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It might help linking Brooklyn.
 * " She was drawn to the idea of playing a female warrior" - I'm seeing this phrasing (drawn to) a lot in the career section. I have read until the end of it.
 * I've only used the phrase twice.  Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I will perhaps post more comments when I read further. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to the rest of your comments, :)  Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Further comments
 * Overlinking in the media section with The Guardian.
 * The word "describe" (or its derivatives) is used eight times throughout the article.
 * Either use The Daily Telegraph or The Telegraph unless I'm wrong in assuming that they are published by the same newspaper.
 * Accessdate for ref 13 is missing.
 * In references, link USA Today in ref 14 and do the opposite in ref 118. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All done, . Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Here's an end to my review; providing a source review so that WT:FAC shouldn't be bothered. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Formatting: had a few issues above that are now resolved. I have another query though: Indiewire needs to be linked in ref 19.
 * Accessdate missing for ref 29.
 * The Huffington Post needs to be in italics - ref 47.
 * Reliability: I don't personally have any issues, but watch out for a possible future tedious discussion about Women's Wear Daily - ref 140.
 * Spot-checked a few sources (had an issue above which is again resolved): no issues. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, ! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 08:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent work expanding the article. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria
I have a few questions and comments: That's as far as I've read, but generally suggest trying to lean on the stronger sources, i.,e the Independent, Guardian, NYT, etc. Will try to get back. Victoria (tk) 20:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Name and place of birth - The New Biographical Dictionary of Film gives the name as Jessica Michelle Chastain and place of birth as Sacramento, . It's probably best to stick with that. In the interview with the Independent, she's very clear about wanting to maintain her privacy in terms of where her family lives. Regardless, it's best to use the higher quality source imo.
 * We say the role for Juliet was her professional debut - do we know whether she was paid or whether it was a community theater performance? If not paid, then "professional" might not be correct.
 * "Chastain's accolades" > not in love with the phrasing. Her awards?
 * Quick comment here ... "awards" would be inaccurate since we're including nominations there. "Accolades" is at least accurate; do you have another word in mind? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree having looked at List of awards and nominations received by Jessica Chastain. I think it can be reworked without "accolades" (but that's a personal preference and not necessarily actionable) to something along the lines of "Chastain has been nominated for two Academy Awards, two BAFTAs and received numerous awards for her work." It's a fairly extensive (and nicely presented) list. The link could be worked in somehow. But this is an extremely minor point. The more important issues are sorting out some of the Early life points I mentioned. I've read the rest of the article, generally agree with John's comments below, but the issue of her early life, her desire for privacy, her desire not to divulge the town where her siblings reside - all that should be respected and the section recast in summary style with fewer quotations and stronger sourcing. Victoria (tk) 23:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * Again the issue of where she was born. If we don't know for certain, it would be better say Northern California imo
 * The Independent tells us the father's mother (her grandmother) was the vegan chef,, (which makes sense because there are lots of restaurants in that area) but we say her mother is the chef; the Guardian says the stepfather is the firefighter and her mother the chef, . It's all very confusing. Does anything need to be fixed?
 * I think the issue of her parents' age and marital status should be trimmed out. It's not really necessary and the article tells us she's reluctant to speak of it, yet we do. Also, having the mother's name on the birth certificate isn't out of the norm, so again I don't see a reason to mention it, and there's some close paraphrasing to the Guardian article in that section anyway.
 * I'm also tempted to suggest that the circumstances around her younger sister's death be trimmed back or maybe shoved into a note; instead maybe simply explain that she had x number of siblings (half and full) and one died in 2003
 * "adult diploma" > do you mean GED? Do we know what year she was supposed to graduate or do we even need to mention that? Would it be better to say she got a GED and went to Community College? This is not atypical for actors.
 * Blockquotes don't use quotation marks so those can safely be removed.
 * The role as Juliet was staged in Mountain View, in Silicon Valley, so it's probably ok to mention the specific area instead of the San Fran Bay Area, but that's a nitpick
 * Probably best to clarify that Robin Williams didn't personally decide to fund her but that instead she received the scholarship from Juilliard that he endowed - again, these endowed scholarships are typical and Juillard accepts such a small number of students (only 24 if I remember correctly) that it's not atypical to receive one

Comments from John
First read through shows a really good article, almost ready for promotion.

Images Images should normally be left as default size, unless there is a special reason to emphasise them.

Tone The tone is generally ok but it generally needs a look over for instances of "fan-speak"; there are too many items like "gaining widespread acclaim and recognition for her roles" and, for example, "Writing for Variety, the critic Steven Oxman criticized her portrayal .." which jangle and can be rewritten.

Quotes WP:QUOTATION tells us "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both." I think there are slightly too many quotes at present. Some of these quotes can be paraphrased, for example "She suffered from depression while working and said, '[one day] I excused myself, walked off set and burst into tears'." would look just as good as "She suffered from depression while working."

Specific queries "Mama eventually earned $146 worldwide." That seems a paltry sum for a film on world release; is $146M intended?
 * Yes, it's $146 million. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing here that can't be quite easily fixed. --John (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note from nominator: Wanted to avoid this, but am posting here to avoid some more judgmental commentary on my personality. I am not going to edit here anymore. I previously wanted to wait till this FAC had closed before calling it quits, but I'm not in a state of mind to address concerns from a certain editor who can downgrade a well-written FA-class article without consequence. Keeping that in mind, I will not be returning to this FAC (and more importantly, to an encyclopedia that allows that to happen) after this. If any of my peers want to keep this FAC going, please feel free to replace me as the nominator. If not, the FAC can be withdrawn. Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 11:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- as there are still comments to be actioned, and there have been no volunteers after a week to take over the nomination, I'll be archiving this shortly; perhaps someone can consider picking it up and putting it through FAC at a later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.