Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jessica Chastain/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017.

Jessica Chastain

 * Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Back at this after I had to withdraw the previous nomination a year ago. Hoping for more constructive criticism this time around. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * I looked at this a year ago, so I'm working from a diff since Sept 19. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award nominations and nominations for two British Academy Film Awards" was changed to: "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations". First, that's wrong: change it to "two Academy Award nominations and two British Academy Film Award (BAFTA) nominations", and use BAFTA after that. Second, if you're talking about where you visited this summer, and you say "I went to London, then Bristol, then Manchester. I visited London twice and Paris twice.", then many listeners will think you visited London three times, because you're talking as if this is an ordered list of your destinations. After you make the change I just suggested, the lead will say: "Her performance as an aspiring socialite in The Help earned her an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty. Chastain made her Broadway debut in a revival of The Heiress in the same year. ... Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations." Most readers, especially if they're reading quickly, will interpret that last sentence as "two additional Academy Award nominations" (unspecified), because you appear to be presenting an ordered list of her accolades. Don't repeat awards in the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "She is known to prepare extensively for her roles": Some WPian copyeditors automatically change this to "She prepares extensively for her roles", but I think it's worth slowing down and trying to figure out what the source means. If they avoided saying that she actually does prepare extensively for her roles (rather than just being known for that) because they're hedging, then treat it as spurious information, and don't include it at all. If the source said "X said that she prepares extensively for her roles", and some WPian shortened that to "known for ...", then un-shorten that ... in WP articles, it's important who said what, unless you're writing some dusty history article and there really is a consensus of historians we can rely on. That's not going to be true for currently active actors. If the person (or persons) attributed by the source isn't (or aren't) worth attributing, for some reason, then again, that's your cue to leave it out entirely. Bottom line: when you see "known for" or the equivalent in any WP article, check what the source said. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "vocal about social issues such as gender and racial equality, and mental health": I don't know what this is trying to say ... is she vocal about social issues in general? Is she only vocal about social issues that are similar to gender equality and the other things? Which issues are like gender equality? Better would be: "vocal about mental health issues and gender and racial equality".
 * "this aspect of her childhood": What is it that she doesn't talk about?
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dank. I've made changes to the lead per your suggestions. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

 * Am I the only one to find it strange to have a photograph of Mrs. Chastain, where she looks off-page, in the infobox? I'd pick one where she looks to the left...
 * This is probably the highest quality picture of her on Commons, but having said that, I wouldn't mind a change if there's an equally good image of her facing left? Do you have any in mind? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "She played the eponymous protagonist in Miss Julie, a film adaptation of August Strindberg's 1888 play of the same name, from director Liv Ullmann." → by director/directed by
 * I also find it a bit stultifying to only have a dismissive review from the tabloid Hollywood Reporter of that very fine picture. The movie was lauded in serious publications like Reverse Shot and Sight & Sound
 * I tried to reflect the mostly mixed response that the film received in general. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Mark Kermode of The Guardian" – rather misleading; Dr. Kermode isn't of The Guardian: he is the chief film critic on Kermode and Mayo's Film Review on BBC Radio 5 Live. I'd rewrite the sentence to something like "Mark Kermode, writing for The Guardian"
 * Changed that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise support. Gertanis (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, . :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM
I confess that I wasn't clear on who she was from her name, but I do remember her character in Mama and have Crimson Peak on DVD (but haven't gotten to it yet)... Then there are several others I definitely intend to see at some point... Happy to take a look.
 * "Chastain would regularly put up amateur shows with other children" Put up? I'd say put on. Is this a British-American thing?
 * Changed.


 * Is "adult diploma" a common term?
 * Added a wiki link.


 * What are "neurotic roles"?
 * Well, she was typecast in roles in "psychotic roles". Changed to "neurotic characters". Is that better?


 * "which marked her final guest star role in television" Is that in the source?
 * Nope, removed.


 * "Chastain received her first Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress," I assume you mean to say that this was her first Oscar nomination, and it was for Best Supporting Actress. This is not really what is claimed at the moment
 * Well, first Oscar nomination, and by virtue, first in the supporting category. Tweaked a bit.


 * "documentary based on her play Salome" her play? What do mean by this?
 * Based on the production of Salome that she worked on in 2006, as mentioned in the previous section. Tweaked.


 * "the film ranks as her highest-grossing release" Does the source say this?
 * Added another source.


 * I wonder whether "enhanced interrogation" should appear in scarequotes?
 * Done.


 * "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone reviewed, "Chastain is a marvel." Can you use reviewed like that?
 * The usage is quite common IMO.


 * "production budget of $165 million, the high-profile production" Repetition
 * Tweaked.


 * "She was cast as McConaughey's adult daughter, a role she shared with Mackenzie Foy and Ellen Burstyn; she was drawn to the project for the emotional heft she found in the father-daughter pair" This needs work: both shes are unclear; she didn't play McConaughey's daughter, but McConaughey's character's daughter; and I'm struggling to understand the way in which she shared the role.
 * Tweaked, and removed the extra info. Not really that important, I guess.


 * "to become Chastain's highest-grossing live-action film" Is this in the source?
 * Added another source.


 * "in which the city had the highest crime rate" More needed. Worldwide? In the US? In its own history?
 * In its own history. Added a wiki link to make it a bit clearer.


 * "a small heating-oil company owner" Could small be dropped? It sounds like the owner is small, not the company...
 * Haha, yes, Removed.


 * "the film became her second top-grossing film in two years" As above
 * Tweaked.

Down to the end of 2014–2015: Success in science fiction films, and I am stopping there for now. The article reads very well, and I look forward to coming back to it tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Josh Milburn. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, continuing:
 * "whose abilities were on par with the male lead" That should be "with those of the male lead's character", but I appreciate that's a little wordy, so maybe you can come up with a better alternative
 * Tweaked to "lead male character".


 * "George and Tammy,[125] will appear in Patrick Brice's comedy film Plus One, with Cecily Strong,[126] and will produce and star as the superhero Painkiller Jane in a film of the same name" You have three high-profile films without wikilinks, here; could you add them? Don't be scared of redlinks if the films are notable. (Also, she won't produce the superhero; she'll produce the film.)
 * Since these three films haven't begun filming yet (and hence don't have their own articles), I guess it'd be better to link them when filming begins.


 * "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome their insecurities" Is "alternate" really the right word? "minority", perhaps? And I'd drop their. (I think that paragraph could do with a few more wikilinks, too!)
 * "Alternate" is the better word IMO. Provided wiki links for sexual and gender identities.


 * "Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, InStyle magazine published in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, the magazine credited her for being the rare actress who is "all bout the craft".[43]" I think you need to check that footnote/reference; something's going very wrong. Also, I'm not really keen on the way you use published, and nor am I keen on the personification of the magazine like that.
 * Tweaked.


 * "From 2012 to 2014 she was featured in AskMen's listing of the most desirable women,[150] and in 2015, Glamour magazine ranked her as one of the best-dressed women.[151]" Worldwide?
 * From the looks of it, they feature women working/living in the US or UK, but neither source states that explicitly.

A very well-put-together article. I'm very glad to have read it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the kind words, . Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks; please ping me again in a week if I haven't gotten back to this. Things are pretty busy at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * as directed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Many apologies. Taking another look through:
 * "an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty" I think the links here are a little deceptive. You say her "second" Oscar, but the word "Oscar" is yet to appear (not everyone knows that Oscar=Academy Award!), and the article linked to refers to an award for which she had not previously been nominated.
 * "She first developed an interest in acting at the age of seven, after her grandmother took her to a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.[3] Chastain would regularly put on amateur shows with other children, and considered herself to be their artistic director.[8]" A thought: Would this not fit better at the start of the paragraph, to keep chronology?
 * "to become Chastain's most widely seen film to that point" Does your source say this?
 * "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome insecurities" I note again that I don't really like alternate, but I'll leave that up to you.
 * Done, but not really sure about the final comment. I am not fond of "minority", so "alternate"/"alternative" seem to be the best option as of now, unless someone can come up with a better word. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a really great article; one of the best BLPs of a "celebrity" that I've read on Wikipedia. So, with the caveat that I've not looked into sourcing/images and will be watching this review for anything I've missed, I'm happy to support the promotion of this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's such a lovely thing to hear, . Thank you so much for such a positive review, and I hope this prompts you to check out more of Chastain's work, especially my favourites: The Debt, The Help, Zero Dark Thirty, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby, Interstellar, and Miss Sloane. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from John
It's looking pretty good. I think there are still too many quotations in it (I make it 40 at present). Can some be summarised? --John (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've paraphrased/trimmed some of the quotes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, and thank you for the edits. I would trim them a little further. I should have time to look properly again tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Early life and background
 * Sorry this has taken a while. Right. Here's what we have now. I'll do it section by section.
 * She considers her stepfather to be "one of the greatest people" she knows, and has said that he was the first person to make her feel secure. I suggest this could just read She has said her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure.
 * She has said, "I used to cut school to read Shakespeare, not to make out in the park". She has described how she used to miss school to read Shakespeare.
 * "artistic director" Just remove the quotes here I think.
 * Speaking about her childhood, Chastain has said: I [grew up] with a single mother who worked very hard to put food on our table. We did not have money. There were many nights when we had to go to sleep without eating. It was a very difficult upbringing. Things weren’t easy for me growing up. Leave this one.
 * In her first year at the school, Chastain described herself as "a wreck of anxiety"; she constantly worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies. In her first year at the school, Chastain was worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies.

2004–2010: Early roles More to come. --John (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * She initially found the process difficult, remarking that "being a redhead and not having very conventionally modern looks, it was confusing for people and they didn't know exactly where to put me". She initially found the process difficult, which she blamed on other people finding her difficult to categorise as a redhead with an unconventional look.
 * She said, "I played a lot of girls who had something off. Maybe they'd been the victim of some horrible accident. Or they were crazy." She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.
 * Her performance was not well received by the critic Ben Brantley of The New York Times, who thought that she "somehow seems to keep losing color as the evening progresses" Keep.
 * Writing for Variety, the critic Steven Oxman criticized her portrayal in the play: "Chastain is so ill-at-ease with Salome, not quite certain whether she's a capable seductress or a whiny, wealthy brat; she doesn't flesh out either choice". Keep.
 * Writing for The New Yorker, Hilton Als commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth in Desdemona". Hilton Als in The New Yorker commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth" in the role.
 * William Thomas of Empire termed the film a "smart, tense, well-acted thriller" and noted that Chastain "pulses with strength and vulnerability" in her part. Keep.
 * Done, except for that small quote mentioning Shakespeare, which I believe should stay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for that. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've actually come back to this one, I'm afraid. I don't think we can have the wikilink in the quote as we discussed, and I'm not sure how good a source Marie Claire is for such a quote. Could we reconsider summarising it? --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

2011: Breakthrough
 * She considered her part to be "the embodiment of grace and the spirit world"; in preparation, she practiced meditation, studied paintings of the Madonna, and read poems by Thomas Aquinas. Keep, I suppose.
 * Justin Chang of Variety termed the film a "hymn to the glory of creation, an exploratory, often mystifying [...] poem" and credited Chastain for playing her part with "heartrending vulnerability". Keep.
 * Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her "zest and love for life"; ... Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her energy and enthusiasm.

2012–2013: Rise to prominence
 * The film received generally positive reviews from critics, with Richard Corliss finding Chastain to be filled with "poised, seductive gravity". Keep.
 * Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, writing that "curiously for an expert film actress, she is guilty here of oversignaling the thoughts within. And her delivery of dialogue sometimes has a flatness that I associate with cold readings of scripts." Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, saying that she was "oversignaling the thoughts within" and that her delivery was sometimes flat.
 * The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film, and she later considered it as "the worst experience" of her life. The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film.
 * She suffered from depression while working and said, "[one day] I excused myself, walked off set and burst into tears". She suffered from depression while working and once walked off the set because she was unable to continue.
 * Peter Travers of Rolling Stone thought that Chastain played Maya "like a gathering storm in an indelible, implosive performance that cuts so deep we can feel her nerve endings." Leave. The good quotes like this will stand out more when we trim and summarise the humdrum ones.

2014–2015: Success in science fiction films
 * The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the production lacked relevance despite Chastain's "nuanced work". The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the film lacked relevance despite the subtlety of Chastain's performance.
 * Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix found the film to be "ambitious and amazing" and took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix praised the film and noted how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.
 * ...and Mark Kermode, writing for The Guardian, found Chastain to be "terrific" in a part inspired by Lady Macbeth's character. Fine.
 * Del Toro cast her in the film to lend accessibility to a part he considered "psychopathic", but critic Peter Debruge of Variety found her "alarmingly miscast" and criticised her for failing to effectively convey her character's insecurity and ruthlessness. Fine.

2016–present -

Personal life and off-screen work
 * She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and describing her routine in 2011, she said, "I walk the dogs, I play the ukulele, I cook. I’m not a girl who goes to big parties". She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and said in 2011 that she enjoyed domestic routines like dog-walking and playing ukulele rather than partying.
 * Among other issues, she is vocal in her support for equal pay in the workplace: "I think people know, if they’re going to hire me I’m not going to just be grateful. There have been situations where I have lost movies because I’ve said, this is not a fair deal, and I’ve walked away." She strongly supports equal pay in the workplace, and has rejected offers of work that she thought were unfair.
 * Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression, saying, "If I can do anything to help someone move through any darkness that they’re in, I’m gonna do whatever I can to help" Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression and support sufferers.

Media image and acting style
 * Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, Porter credited her for being the rare actress who is "all about the craft". Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that she was mature, candid, and had perspective and craft in her work.
 * I think this is a good quote. Paraphrasing makes us lose the essence of it. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Evgenia Peretz, an editor at Vanity Fair, considers Chastain to be "the most sensitive and empathetic actor" she has interviewed. Fine.
 * She believes in extensive preparations for a role: "[I] fill myself up with as much history of the character as I can". She believes in extensive preparations for a role and studies the characters intensively. Is this even worth saying about a professional actor though?
 * I think she's talking about creating her own "history" for the character she plays, as opposed to simply "studying" the character intensively. This should stay IMO, unless there's a better way to paraphrase this. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Guillermo del Toro (who directed her in Crimson Peak) believes that she is "interested in being chameleonic" and that she brings authenticity even to bizarre situations. Fine.
 * Sarah Karmali of Harper's Bazaar opines that "she goes for total immersion, sinking so deep into character that her face seems to change shape with each one".
 * Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her craft to that of actresses Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett and believes that her "looks are always an afterthought". Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her to Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett, and writes that she values her craft over her looks.
 * Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". Keep.

Acting credits and awards -

It should go without saying that some of these summaries could potentially be further improved; think of them as a starting point. But we need to summarise rather than quote where we can. That way the article is more readable and encyclopedic and the quotes we do use stand out more. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've paraphrased the quotes per your suggestions, with some minor tweaks. Thank you for taking the time out to do this, John. Your suggestions have vastly improved the article. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Prose
 * Her highest-grossing releases came with the science-fiction films Interstellar (2014) and The Martian (2015), as she continued to draw praise for her performances in the dramas The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (2013), A Most Violent Year (2014), and Miss Sloane (2016). The chronology makes this sentence confusing and arguably self-contradictory.
 * I don't think so. The "as she continued..." part makes it clear that both "events" took place simultaneously. I don't see why it's confusing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the "as" that I struggle with. Could we replace it with "and" or even just a semi-colon? John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to "and". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Her sister Juliet committed suicide in 2003 following years of drug abuse. "Committed suicide" sounds wrong here; was it a crime where she did it? "Killed herself" is better but maybe "took a fatal overdose" (if that was the MO, haven't checked)? "Following years of drug abuse" is a bit tabloidy too.
 * I can say died by suicide though, if that's acceptable. The details of the suicide aren't known, but the "years of drug abuse", while sounding tabloidy, is true, per the provided source and some other interviews that Chastain has given. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be much preferable, thank you. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * With too many absences during her senior year in school, Chastain did not qualify for graduation, but eventually obtained an adult diploma. What does "eventually" mean? A date would be better I think.
 * Exact year is not known, so we need to go with "later"/"eventually". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I might prefer "later" as being more NPOV; "eventually" sounds like a criticism. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Directed by P. J. Hogan, the pilot did not perform well and the series was never picked up for broadcast. Per User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment, we could credit our readers with intelligence and just say: The pilot was directed by P. J. Hogan, but the series was never picked up for broadcast.
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to more neurotic characters for her. She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill. Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to her getting more unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.
 * Done.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * After struggling for a breakthrough in film, Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them. Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them.
 * Useful to note the "struggling for a breakthrough" bit, because she did struggle for a breakthrough since 2004. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems self-evident from reading the preceding part of the article and the section title. I'm not sure we need to state it. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Better to IMO. Some might say why does the header say breakthrough when there is no mention of it in the text? I've heard such complaints in previous FACs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Following several delays, the film premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival to a polarized reception from the audience, although it was praised by critics and won the Palme d'Or. "A polarized reception from the audience" sounds euphemistic; if the source talks about cheering and booing, we should say so.
 * Not euphemistic at all. When a film receives good and bad reviews, we say it received "mixed" reviews; if an audience reacts with cheers and boos, then it represents a "polarised reception". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. Let me think some more about this. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Chastain was cast as Maya, an emotionally hardened CIA intelligence analyst who helped capture bin Laden. Captured? I'm pretty sure he was killed and, though I haven't seen the film, I'm pretty sure he is killed in the film.
 * Captured and killed, yes, of course. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just killed, not captured. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Zero Dark Thirty received critical acclaim but was controversial for scenes of "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were shown providing useful intelligence in the search for bin Laden. I don't like the scare quotes. Our article enhanced interrogation techniques correctly says this was a euphemism for torture, and we should call it what it is. More importantly, the controversy (as I understand it) was that the film's implication that the torture yielded useful intelligence was counter-factual. We should spell this out, without entering WP:COATRACK territory.
 * The quotes were inserted due to a previous reviewer's comment. Since the article on torture is called "enhanced interrogation techniques" and not "torture techniques", I think we should go with that, even if it is a euphemism. (I remember this led to an edit war during the previous FAC; and this is the version that has remained stable since) Also, the fact that it may or may not have been counter-factual is up for debate; hence the controversy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's called that, but the fact that it's a euphemism is noted in the article and it might be better to use a more neutral term. We should definitely not mention the controversy without explaining why it was controversial; it should be easy to source. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to "torture" for now. Let's see if other's agree on this. As for explaining the controversy, it's way too complicated to describe in an actor's biography. The explanation is better suited in the film's article, so I've provided a wiki link to it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still thinking about this. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The film received a limited theatrical release and was not widely seen. The film received a limited theatrical release.
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In a highly positive review, Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.
 * Why should I remove the highly positive part, when it was indeed a highly positive review for a much-admired film? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment again. We're really saying the same thing twice here and there is no need. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * She collaborated with costume designer Kasia Walicka-Maimone to work on the character's wardrobe, and reached out to Armani for clothing of the period. ...and contacted Armani who provided her with clothing of the period.
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy, and in preparation read graveyard poetry and watched the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? Chastain prepared by reading graveyard poetry and watching the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
 * "Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy" is important to note. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Are we implying that she previously only played morally upstanding roles? Is there a source for that? It sounds like editorialising to me. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It was a clear-cut villainous part on paper (the Hollywood idea of a vixen, if you may), and instead of approaching it as many do such roles, it's important to note that she played the part with empathy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The source has: Though Lucille is ostensibly the film's villain, Chastain approached the character from a place of profound empathy, reading graveyard poetry and watching films like "Rebecca," "Misery" and "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" to get in the proper mind-set. "I'd never played anyone who was so intensely lonely," she said. "I don't see Lucille as a monster. I have compassion for how she became what she is." I'd like to see a more encyclopedic summary of this before I could support. An encyclopedia summarises the best quality sources. I stand by my version as opposed to what we have. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * i've tweaked it; don't know what else to do. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ...headed by a team consisting exclusively of female executives. headed by a team of female executives.
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * She also researched on the world... She also researched the world...
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * She was a pescatarian for much of her life, but following health troubles she began practicing veganism. She was a pescatarian for much of her life; following health troubles she began practicing veganism. This is not a "but" situation.
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation. We could summarise this one and leave the link.
 * "We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation". Could you please provide a link for this guideline? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point. And MoS compliance is a FA requirement.
 * Thanks for the link. Of course it is, I just wasn't aware of the wiki link in quotes rule. I'll keep it in mind now. :) Tweaked it according to the guideline. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012. That same year, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was hired as the celebrity endorser for an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. In 2012, Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and she endorsed an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. --John (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Too long. Tweaked a bit, though. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

thoughts? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, . John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the edits. Just a few more to go and we'll be there. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources
 * What makes the New York Daily News gossip column a good source to use on this biography of a living person? --John (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy response. Does the Vogue source also support: "She has said that her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure"? --John (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. The NYDN took the quote from there. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't seem to back up The play tells the tragic story of its titular character's sexual exploration. In the play, Salome is a 16-year-old, but Chastain, who was close to 30 then, was cast for the part. --John (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * which part?; the source says: The original Salome was supposed to be about 16-years-old but Chastain, who was 32 at the time, does not think that her being twice Salome's age mattered in the casting. She said: "The play still shows the themes - it's a woman discovering her sexuality and trying to test its boundaries. It was a very dark, different play for Wilde to write compared to his other comedies." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it. I think "32" would be better than "close to 30" in this case. --John (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, since she was born in 1977, she would have been 29 in 2006, and not 32 as the source states (which is weird, because they got her age at that time right; she was 37 in 2014). So I guess, close to 30 seems fair. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is no decent source capable of doing the simple calculation correctly, I think it would be OK to do the maths ourselves and give her age correctly as 29. It doesn't say much for this source though that they are unable to get something as simple as this right. --John (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * True, that. It is the BBC though, and the article does have some very good material. Anyway, I've changed it to 29. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I've another nit to pick up above, though. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And I took out a "would" and moved the discussion of her birthplace to the footnote. Hope that's ok. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's perfect. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I really did like the Shakespeare quote, but it's okay, I've taken it out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the work and your collegiate spirit of compromise. I still wish we could take a couple more quotes out, but I reckon it's easily at FA level at this point. I therefore support. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . This has been a lovely experience. I'm much obliged for your help and patience in shaping the article to be the best that it can be. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are nearly there now. Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need an image review. Also, while John has looked at the reliability of sources, I think we still need a check of source formatting. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Requested. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Image review:
 * File:Jessica Chastain at the Salome BFI London Premiere (cropped).jpg: Use and license seem fine for me, I'll overlook the lack of EXIF here.
 * File:Juilliard School - Alice Tully Hall.jpg: ALT text is rather vague. Source and license seem fine.
 * File:Jessica Chastain - MVff2010.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Jessica Chastain (Berlin Film Festival 2011).jpg: License and use seems fine for me.
 * File:Jessica Chastain Cannes 2, 2012.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Martian PC 25 (20730860464).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Cannes 122 (28038348041).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Cannes 2017 39.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Jessica Chastain by Gage Skidmore.jpg: License and use seem fine.
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, . I've improved the alt text for the second image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review
For formatting as requested
 * Ref 4's publisher is linked to a television series.
 * Yep, Biography.com redirects to Biography, the tv series, which is its official website.


 * It's IndieWire not Indiewire.
 * Ref 15 - The NY Times needs to have a wiki-link.
 * Normally I see the publisher for a Roger Ebert review linked to Chicago Sun-Times.
 * .com is not part of Vulture's title.
 * Slate needs to be wiki-linked.
 * So does Screen Daily (FN 111).
 * And also The Washington Post (114).
 * Ref 119 and 153 - Reuters should be linked on first instance.
 * Variety needs to be de-linked (127).
 * Ref 130 ^^
 * Ah, so this one is The Daily Telegraph (Australia) as opposed to the The Daily Telegraph of the previous sources


 * Ref 129 and 150 - I think you know what to do here.
 * E! needs to be linked (134).
 * Ref 153b - Zap2it is now called Screener [link]. Also remove |deadlink=no since the link is now dead.
 * Ref 157 - link Women's Wear Daily. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for taking the time out to do this, . Really appreciate it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref formatting now fine. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

source formatting and image reviews are now done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that there are quite a few duplinks in the article. Possibly, they are all justified, but it is worth someone checking after this has been promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.