Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Judy Ann Santos/archive1

Judy Ann Santos

 * Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Having previously worked on Filipino related articles. I chose to work next on Judy Ann Santos, an actress with an extensive career in film and television starting at the age of eight. The article provides a concise coverage of her work, after nursing it up in the last couple of months. It has undergone a thorough copyedit to address MoS, flow, punctuation issues. I feel ready to bring this to FAC. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

 * "Born in Manila and raised in Antipolo, Rizal, Santos began her career as a child with supporting roles." Supporting roles where? Television? Film? Theater?
 * Added to clarify supporting roles on film


 * "She also wrote a cookbook called Judy Ann's Kitche" - mentioning the year of release might be helpful.
 * Added


 * "The family soon moved to Antipolo, Rizal, to be closer to their father." He isn't everyone's father; the family also includes the mother.
 * Made the change to clarify


 * "In 1986, her parents separated and the children lived with their mother[3] for three years before she left" - who is she referring to here?
 * Reworded to avoid confusion


 * "For portraying a socialite in the show, Santos struggled from being typecast for previously playing impoverished roles." This sentence is not very clear to me. Did she play a socialite to break away from her previous impoverished roles? If so, the current wording indicates that her portrayal of a socialite added to her struggle getting typecast.
 * I have reworded this as well. I realize it somehow added to the confusion. She was typecast with impoverished roles, so she struggled with her portrayal as a socialite on the new show. Hopefully the change reads better.


 * "Santos's final release that year ranks among the most acclaimed of her career." It might be helpful mentioning the the film's title directly after "final release" than in the next sentence.
 * Done


 * "To prepare for Ysabella (2007), Santos took a four-month culinary course at the Center for Asian Culinary Studies." What was her role in it? This will help the reader's understanding of why she took the course.
 * Added


 * "In 2006, before filming Ysabella, Santos took a four-month culinary course at the Center for Asian Culinary Studies and earned her certification with distinction." This is already mentioned in career section, as it was in preparation for her role in the film. It does not need to be repeated.
 * Removed

That's it from me. I made some edits here to improve the prose and make MoS adjustments. FrB.TG (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your thorough review and your edits to improve the article. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed or need changes. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I might make further changes to improve the prose but this meets the criteria in my opinion. FrB.TG (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for your support and would be much grateful for inputs/edits that could further improve as you find fit. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Ergo Sum

 * Lede section seems a bit too long for an article of this length
 * Trimmed the lede
 * It's not an absolute rule, but I usually find MOS:LEADLENGTH pretty good. For an article of this length (approx. 24,000 characters), four paragraphs seems a bit much. I think it would probably do well to be trimmed a bit more.  Ergo Sum  14:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Had a bit of a challenge, but I think I've trimmed it down to 3 paras. Hopefully that is succinct and acceptable for the lede? Pseud 14 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks fine.  Ergo Sum  14:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Early life
 * Should it read Manila, the Philippines?
 * It is only preceded by "the" if referring to the country alone. If writing as [city],[country] then we omit the definite article


 * What does it mean to be closer to her father? Is there some missing context here?
 * Clarified this. They moved to be closer to where he works.


 * "their needs" - should specify her children
 * Done


 * "lived with their nanny" - should first clarify that the children remained in the Philippines
 * Added


 * "Her career prospects improved" - not sure what this means. Does this mean it was her first breakthrough?
 * It was her first starring role as a child star. Not necessarily a breakthrough (which happened later when she was a teenager). After minor roles and a failed auditioned for a lead role in a soap opera, getting the part was an improvement in her career prospects

Career
 * "adapted into film" - should this say "adapted as a film"?
 * Done


 * "played his wife" - she played the wife of Pascual's character, not Pascual himself
 * Done


 * "boxing training" - sounds odd to my ear. Maybe something like "boxes classes" or "trained in boxing"
 * Done


 * "which she thought was" - maybe "which she found"
 * Done


 * "called it" - "called the film"
 * Done


 * "as his outspoken wife" - as his character, [name]'s, outspoken wife
 * I've reworded this bit, as I could not find a mention of the character name in the citation. Let me know if it reads ok


 * "as an abused wife" - "playing an abused wife"
 * Done

Reception
 * One of the most talented - is this globally or in the Philippines
 * Clarified this by including "Filipina". As this is local (Philippines)

Other ventures
 * Is her restauranteuring a development that occurred later in her career?
 * Yes, it was early 2000s when she became involved in the restaurant business.
 * It might be worth it to include this fact in the first sentence of that section.  Ergo Sum  12:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also mentioned in the succeeding sentence that it began in the early 2000s following her acquisition of the businesses, but I have since updated it to clarify and include that her involvement began in the restaurant business because of that. Let me know if that reads ok. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that's everything from me.  Ergo Sum  01:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks alright.  Ergo Sum  14:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review . I have actioned the above comments. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Support on prose  Ergo Sum  14:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and thorough review, . Much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Damien Linnane

 * "supporting roles on film" - should this be 'in film?'
 * Done


 * "proprietor of the defunct Victoria Supermart" - should this be "now defunct", or was it defunct when Judy was born?
 * Changed to the former. It was still operational when Santos was born.


 * Is there any coverage of how she began acting at eight? As in, did her mother enroll her with an agency or something?
 * None that I could find in any high-quality source. In interviews or news sources, it is only mentioned that it was her first acting gig. Her mother was already in Toronto by the time she was eight-ish. Her older brother, Jeffrey Santos, is an actor, so that might have paved the way, but none that has been written in any coverage of her work that has been published.


 * I'd wikilink the '₱' at it's first mention.
 * Linked


 * I think it would be better to not abbreviate National Bureau of Investigation.
 * Done


 * "while Asilo stated that the movie" - 'film' is typically the preferred encyclopedic term, rather than 'movie'
 * I reworded, so that 'film' doesn't get repeated in the same sentence.


 * "Santos has been described by the media as one of the most talented ... " - 'by the media' is too vague; specify which media outlets described her in this way.
 * Reworded to exclude mention of media, so it doesn't appear promotional (which I just realized too), "Santos has been regarded as one of..." Instead of mentioning each media outlets that I've used. Let me know if this approach is acceptable.


 * Having a selected filmography apparently based on box-office results is not something I've ever seen before. I'm not saying you can't do it, just though I'd mention that as I don't know what the precedent is here.
 * I've actually referenced existing FAs for this section. (e.g. Kate Winslet, Reese Witherspoon, Julianne Moore, Anne Hathaway). Although I had to use inline citations for each film, as Box Office Mojo doesn't provide accurate reporting of Philippine box-office returns or never at all.
 * Looks very good overall. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for taking the time to review, I understand you were traveling for work and busy these days. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes looks good to me. Happy to support on prose. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon
I'm not familar with film from this part of the world, but for what it is worth here are some comments:
 * Lead still seems too long to me
 * Trimmed


 * is there a way to rephrase the opening paragraph so that there is mention of and link to Cinema of the Philippines?
 * Reworded, and linked mentions of film and television to Cinema of the Philippines and Television in the Philippines


 * 3 times "also" in the last few sentences of the lead
 * Fixed


 * Santos became more recognized when she and Gladys Reyes starred in the soap opera Mara Clara (1992), earning her first FAMAS Award --> is the 2nd part of the sentence really connected to the 1st? Something does not feel right to me, but can't put my finger on it
 * I've since removed the second part


 * She is a co-owner of AngryDobo, a Filipino restaurant in Taft Avenue, Manila --> too much detail for the lead: just "she co-owns a restaurant" suffices
 * I took this bit out while trimming the lede, since it’s already mentioned that she is a restaurateur. And her business ventures are covered in the body.


 * inconsitent date format: infobox has 11 May 1978 but elsewhere May 11, 1978
 * Fixed consistent with mdy format to the rest of the article


 * I'm not a fan of link labels that don't tell me where I land: Kaming Mga Ulila links much to my surprise to [[1987 in Philippine television where I can learn precisely nothing new about it. There are plenty more dubious ones, too much to list (Ula, Ang Batang Gubat, Impaktita, etc etc). Only link to a film article. If notable, redlink.
 * Unlinked


 * eponymous: link to eponym
 * Linked


 * Santos's first breakthrough --> can there be a 2nd one?
 * Removed "first"


 * gross over ₱100 million --> MOS:CURRENCY suggests to add a conversion to a more familiar currency
 * Added US$ conversion


 * in the independent film Ploning (2008) --> what was this film about? or at least what genre?
 * Clarified as independent drama

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your initial review. I've responded to above and made the changes. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All good. A bit more:


 * Kaffe Carabana in Timog Avenue --> avoid street names
 * I've updated this to the district/city, but piped to Timog Avenue (as my citations refer to Timog Avenue). Similarly, I've changed Taft Avenue as well in the same section.


 * complicated dishes", and that "[i]t doesn’t simply present --> not sure this flows well: "and that"
 * Fixed. Slightly reworded to "and added that". Let me know if this flows well


 * the Agoncillo quote about the fight is not really wp material. Avoid trivia.
 * Removed this quote


 * the Discography section is a surprise. Is there a reason why her music is not mentioned earlier?
 * Santos isn't really known for being a singer. In fact, she has zero singing talent. Her releases are products of auto-tune. I don't know if it's a Philippine pop culture thing, but actors like her who have massive box-office draw or television presence, are signed by labels as money-making investments riding their popularity, it seems to work commercially. But most of these are critically panned. I felt it was best to list them under a Discography section, since there isn't much coverage on these releases that are available from news sources or online publications, e.g. album(s) review, single(s) review from music critics.

That's it from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I have actioned the above and provided my responses. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe this now meets the FA criteria and I Support its nomination. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version. Your cite news citations seem to be formatted inconsistently. You mostly just use the publisher parameter, which is OK so long as it makes clear what the source is. However, for [25], [100], and [127] you use both the work and the publisher, and for another 16 cites (I can give you the cite numbers if you want them) you use the work parameter but not the publisher parameter. It doesn't matter how you do the cites so long as they're consistent and convey what the reader needs. The work parameter is commonly used for the website (e.g. "Philippine Daily Inquirer") in which case the publisher isn't needed if it's obvious from the website name -- so for example if you have "work=New York Times" you don't need "publisher=New York Times". What's the rationale for the different ways you have set up these cites?
 * Thanks for starting the source review . Hopefully my explanation/rationale provide clarity, and feel free to let me know so I can fix the parameters with consistency and up to standard:
 * [25] and, [100], including [111] -- I was of the understanding that if I used magazine publications, I would have to include the publisher parameter (publication company). These are the only ones I believe I used. Preview magazine, Variety magazine, and Cosmopolitan magazine, but I think I should be referring to that as the website/work instead. So I have removed the publisher parameters.
 * [127] (and other usage of newspaper sources) -- I have made changes so it is consistent with other newspaper sources. I've used "newspaper=" instead of "work=" parameter (no publisher). These were used for sources from The Philippine Star, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Manila Times, Manila Standard, and SunStar Davao. Hope I didn't miss any and let me know if this approach is ok.
 * I've used the publisher parameters (no work) for non-newspaper sources, which includes for the most part are ABS-CBN Entertainment, Philippine Entertainment Portal, Star Cinema.
 * For official video sources -- I used "work" for the program title and "publisher" for the network/entity that aired/published it. Let me know if this the way to do it or if either parameters should be removed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. For the non-newspaper sources you can also use "website=" instead of publisher, if you like -- the parameter is just an alias for newspaper/work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

That's the only formatting issue I can see. I'll check the links and source reliability next, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I noticed a recent edit of yours and wanted to make sure you were aware of something: "work", "website", and "newspaper" are all exactly the same parameter (they are aliases for each other) and there's no reason to change one into another unless you're just looking for consistency (which is a perfectly good reason). Changing "work" to "newspaper" has no effect on the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

All looks good above; I will continue with the rest of the review below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Footnote numbers now referring to this version.
 * [95] has no publisher or work parameter.
 * I've added publisher


 * [136] is a dead link.
 * I've replaced with a working link from the same newspaper, and archived.


 * The archive links for the Spotify citations at the end don't work -- [146], [147], [148].
 * I see the error there, just realized that. I think it's a log-in issue when archived. I've replaced it with an article to support the list of albums released.

That's everything I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the source review. I have actioned the above comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good now. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated and thank you for the clarifications on formatting . Pseud 14 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from NØ
I am reviewing this article. I support since it looks like one of the best bios I have read and ready for promotion. Here are a few suggestions:
 * "At the age of eight, Santos began her professional acting career when she debuted in a minor role in the television series Kaming Mga Ulila (1986)" - Would it sound better with a verb? "when she made her debut by portraying a minor role"
 * Done


 * "'It's totally out of my comfort zone. Everything about Dianne in Gimik is not me,' she said." - There should be a source right next to a direct quote.
 * How could I miss this. Added now. Should be the same source as sentence that precedes and follows it.


 * Maybe you could mention that Boots Plata is a director. It's a bit unclear if it's a person or a company without clicking the link.
 * Done


 * "which she found a "welcome change" - from what?
 * Added to clarify.


 * Do we need to name Santos's children? WP:BLPNAME seems to somewhat discourage this since it isn't "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (Santos here)".--NØ 07:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have considered that as well, however, all her kids had a fair amount of media coverage. They also appear quite frequently with Santos on commercials and marketing campaigns for brands/products. So their names, I would say, are public knowledge and perhaps worth mentioning in the section. See examples
 * That clarifies it.


 * Thank you for your kind words and much appreciate the support . I have addressed your above suggestions. Let me know if there's anything that stands out. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All good now. Great work!--NØ 16:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to get a status update for this nomination. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)