Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/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) 03:17, 26 November 2017.

Sévérine

 * Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about a fictional character who appears in the 23rd James Bond film Skyfall (2012). Even though Sévérine has a relatively minor role in the overall film, the character was prominently featured in promotional materials and discussed during interviews. Media outlets frequently compared Sévérine to past Bond girls; Marlohe said that she looked to Xenia Onatopp as a point of inspiration for her own performance.

Critical response to Bond's treatment of Sévérine has been largely negative; commentators responded negatively to Bond's seduction of the character after discovering that she was a sex slave, and his cold response to her death. The character has also been a topic of racial criticism, receiving comparisons to previous Bond girls Aki, Kissy Suzuki, and Wai Lin.

I had written and expanded this article to the point of GA earlier in the year. I am looking forward to everyone’s comments and suggestions. If successful, this would be the first featured article on a character from the James Bond films. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * Wondering if we need to have two non-free images here - seems to me the second would be sufficient to illustrate the character and her wardrobe. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. The first image (the infobox one) focuses more so on the character while the second one (the one on the dress) more so focuses on a particular aspect of the character's wardrobe that attracted quite a bit of attention from media outlets. I understand your point though; what would you suggest? Do you think that the dress image should be moved up to the infobox? I just found it helpful to have the dress image next to the information that discusses it. Hope this makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd suggest moving up the dress image and deleting the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have moved the dress image up and deleted the other image per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2
It looks well written. I'm not experienced with film characters but I wonder if you could balance the lead section because the first one feels too small. Imagine like if you are writing a formal letter and write a premise of her role in the film rather than everything from her arc in the lead. Feel free to ping me. I think it's good FA material. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I have worked to try to balance out the different paragraphs more. I also want each paragraph to stand for a different section, with the first being about the character in the film, the second about the production/casting/background, and the third about the reception. Hope the changes help to improve this and thank you again for the input. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Giving it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources comment
Can you explain your approach towards the inclusion of retrieval dates in your references? You include them in refs 2 and 39, but not otherwise. I can't see why this should be so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I had forgotten to remove the retrieval dates from those two sources so I apologize for that. I have removed them now. Please let me know if anything else can be improved. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was rather expecting that you would add retrieval dates to the others, rather than deleting those you had. What's the justification? Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. To the best of my knowledge, retrieval dates are only added and kept if the reference is not archived in some manner. I have been told in previous reviews that the retrieval date is useful when the link dies as it provides a date in which the site was active and lets you go back into a website archive to restore it. I have also been told in previous reviews that adding three dates (the date of the source's publication, retrieval date, and archive date) leads to a lot of unnecessary numbers in the references section. Hope this makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes sense, but is it best accepted practice? I see that the current FAC's Kate Winslet, Lady Gaga and The Carpenters all show archive + retrieval dates, as does the recently promoted DJ AM and... well, most of the articles I remember source-reviewing recently. However, I see that with your own Melanie Barnett I accepted your approach without comment. If no one else raises this issue I won't press it, but in future it may be worth your while to adopt what seems to be the most general FA practice. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I think that it would be best if there was a discussion in the future to establish what the accepted FA practice should be as just going off other articles or doing what one thinks is "the most general FA practice" is too vague and could lead to issues. It would be better to have it put into a Wikipedia policy of some sort instead and have a consensus reached by a larger group of users. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

 * Re: "Waste of good Whiskey", he actually says "it's a waste of good Scotch."
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear what "the most realized sequence of the movie" means. The archived link to that article doesn't work for me, by the way; it shows the article then disappears. Also, when using that template, you should add "url-status=live" if the original link is live, so that the live link is presented first. That produces:


 * SarahSV (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have used the citation that you have provided. I have also revised the portion you found unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have used the citation that you have provided. I have also revised the portion you found unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments so far. I have addressed both of your points of concern. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You changed only one template. The template default is "url-status=dead", so all the citations with live links need "url-status=live" to change the display order (that's assuming you want to provide an archive link; it isn't necessary). Compare:




 * SarahSV (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this. I am not sure how I missed that so I apologize for that. Please let me know if there are any sources that I missed. Have a great day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Aoba47, there are a few problems with the citations, so please go through them and check for accuracy and consistency. Two examples (these are only examples): current citation 15 (Den of Geek) is displaying as dead but it's live, and citation 16 (Evening Standard) has the wrong article title, and why is George Osborne, the newspaper's editor, added as the publisher in that citation? With newspapers, you only have to add the title of the newspaper. You don't need publisher, editor or anything else, unless perhaps it's an unusual title and people need more details to track it down. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I have gone through all of the citations and made corrections where appropriate. I have tagged a few sources as dead as the link no longer works on my end. I have address the issue with publisher. I just wanted to be complete as possible with the citation, but I understand what you mean and will make sure to modify my citation style and approach in the future to adhere to Wikipedia policy and style. I have also made sure that the titles match up. I am glad that I checked as I made quite a few silly mistakes so it definitely improved the article a great deal. Aoba47 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * One problem with the article is that it repeats a lot of PR interviews, often nothing to do with the character. For example (these are just examples), "Mendes said that Marlohe was 'brilliant' during her second audition" and "Marlohe called the role a 'turning point in [her] career'." There is a lot of quoting, "A said x", rather than summarizing the sources in your own words. SarahSV (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have cut down several of the quotes. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that it has "nothing to do with the character" as the casting and the actress' point of view are important pieces of background information that would be necessary for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query:, do you have anything further to add? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , I have no interest in opposing or continuing with the review, so it might be better to ask for more reviewers on WT:FAC. As I said above, I think there's too much quoting and in-text attribution (A said X, B said Y), too much about the actress, several sentences don't really say much, if anything (e.g. what does it mean to say "she created a deep background for the more minor role"?), and some of it isn't that clear. For an example of the last point, see the first paragraph of the section "Arc" (and "coerce any answers" should be fixed):


 * "Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) first encounters James Bond (Daniel Craig) while on an assignment in Shanghai. She helps the mercenary Patrice (Ola Rapace) assassinate an art dealer by leading the target in front of a window. Bond confronts Patrice about his affiliations, but is unable to coerce any answers before the assassin falls out of a window to his death. Sévérine and Bond exchange a glance before she leaves the room. Bond takes the payment intended for Patrice, a token for a casino in Macau."


 * The same paragraph on Wikia is clearer:


 * "James Bond first sees Sévérine assisting Patrice in an art dealer's assassination. Sévérine is in an apartment across from Patrice, and she leads the dealer to a large window allowing Patrice a clear shot. After Patrice kills the dealer, Bond successfully disarms him and demands to know who he is working for. Patrice remains silent and falls out of the building to his death. Sévérine, now alone in the apartment, witnesses this, and after a sinister glance towards Bond she leaves to re-join her guards. Searching through Patrice's briefcase, Bond finds anonymous payment in the form of a chip from a casino in Macau. Bond decides to visit the casino and cash the chip, knowing this will attract attention and bring him closer to Patrice's employer."


 * SarahSV (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I will try to get to them by the end of the night. I honestly find it a little rude and condescending to put remarks and then not follow through with the review because you do not have an "interest". However, I will put aside my personal issues with your attitude, and I will still attempt to address your points. I also do not see how the Wikia summary is particularly clearer than mine. Aoba47 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize if that comes across as rude. We've had discussions recently about the difficulty of opposing and sometimes being expected effectively to help rewrite some of the candidates. It's a problem of FAC having become too much like the peer-review process, rather than a final review. I've therefore decided not to oppose if I think that might happen. It isn't a personal issue or related to this article in particular, and I wouldn't have commented again had Sarastro not pinged me. SarahSV (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I think we just disagree with the expectations for the FAC process; I just respectfully disagree with you on this matter, which is not necessarily a negative thing. I will try to address some of the concerns as I do want to improve the article as much as possible at the end of the day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To expand on my previous comment, I do not see how the Wikia summary is better when large portions of it are not about Severine ( After Patrice kills the dealer, Bond successfully disarms him and demands to know who he is working for. Patrice remains silent and falls out of the building to his death.) and the phrase (a sinister glance) is rather silly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG
Lead
 * Portrayed by Bérénice Marlohe - play is more preferable.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * She collaborates with James Bond - might be worth mentioning who plays Bond in Skyfall.
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Media commentators characterized Sévérine as a femme fatale - as femme fatale is French (non-English), it should be in italics.
 * I am not entirely certain about this. In my opinion, the word "femme fatale" has entered into English enough for it to be understood by an English audience so I do not believe that the italics are necessary. However, if you strongly believe otherwise, then I will put it in italics. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is common enough in English. However, we still italicize it (at least I have seen nee in italics in many articles) and so does the article we have on it on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Critics had a mixed response to Sévérine, comparing her to previous Bond girls. The response to Bond's treatment of Sévérine was largely negative; commentators panned Bond's seduction of the character after discovering that she was a sex slave, and his cold response to her death. - close repetition of "response".
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Arc
 * As I intend to watch Skyfall in the future, I am going to skip this section to avoid spoilers.
 * Hope you enjoy the film! Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Casting and influences
 * The others include: Carole Bouquet, Claudine Auger, Sophie Marceau, and Eva Green. - this is better off as a footnote.
 * Good point! I always forget about footnotes on here so thank you for the reminder. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A strong believer in fate, Marlohe stated that she dreamt of acting alongside Javier Bardem six months before her Bond audition - not a fan of dream of, maybe wanted to act alongside?
 * Agreed, "dream of" is a little too cheesy for a Wikipedia article so I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that part stood out when I first read it a few months ago, I read up a little further on it. Marlohe literally had a dream where she acted alongside Bardem, it wasn't just a wish to work with him. That's why it ties into the whole fate aspect. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point. I have changed it back to include the "dream" verbage as it does more accurately reflect the source. Thank you for bringing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To prepare for the role, she studied the script closely - do we really need this part? Isn't that true of most professional actors?
 * That is true. I just added it as the source made a particular point of it, but I agree with you. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While preparing for the role, Marlohe also paid close attention to the soundtracks of the earlier films, saying that she focused on "respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies" - while this also works where it currently is, I think it will work better at the second paragraph of Casting and influences, where we discuss her preparation for the role.
 * Makes sense to me. I agree with your suggestion that it fits more so more with the second paragraph and I have moved it accordingly. Thank you for your comments so far and I look forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Characterization
 * explaining that she aimed to imagine the character as more modern and realistic; she explained - two explain's
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * She went to say that she did not - went on to is completely unnecessary here. Just said should suffice, I believe.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Fashion
 * The backless evening gown that Sévérine is wearing - present simple should be more preferable. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception
 * "Marlohe attributed to keeping her a character's storyline a surprise for viewers" - "her character" not "her a character" unless I am missing something.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Ali Gray of Theshiznit.co.uk referred to the character as a "pale reminder of 007's usual line of gorgeous yet meaningless female companions".[24]" - the source attached to it from a Mikhail Lecaros. Also, why is this Theshiznit.co.uk source reliable?
 * Good point. I have removed the source as I could not locate any information on their editors on the main website. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Feminist criticism
 * "The critical response to Sévérine's death sequence was primarily negative" - unnecessary definite article.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Racial criticism
 * "Sévérine was characterized as the Asian Other through the black evening gown" - I am not sure here but does Other need to be capitalized?
 * Revised. I have it revised as a reference to the linked concept, but I understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That's it from me although it would certainly not bad if a fresh pair of eyes provides another in-depth review. That said, I will support this once why my minor comments are addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I believe that I addressed everything. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article's quality. I hope you have a wonderful day! And since this nomination is still pretty recent, there is plenty of time for more people to review it hopefully. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. I’m sure it’ll improve more with more reviews, but as it currently stands it makes for an good read. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Moise
Lead:
 * “Critics had a mixed response to Sévérine, comparing her to previous Bond girls.“ I’m not sure what the second half of this sentence means here. Possibly “compared with previous Bond girls” (?) but even then it doesn’t seem like the clearest thing to say.” Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have revised the sentence to read better. What I was trying to communicate was that critics have both positively and negatively compared the character to previous Bond girls in the franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• “The character has also been a topic of racial criticism, receiving comparisons to previous Bond girls Aki, Kissy Suzuki, and Wai Lin.” I would argue that in the lead more important than who she was compared to would be what kind of racial criticisms commentators had mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Casting and influences:
 * “Mendes praised Marlohe during her second audition.” Doesn’t seem very useful or illuminating as is. Presumably Mendes would have been happy with her audition or he wouldn’t have cast her, so just saying he “praised” her doesn’t do much. I haven’t read the source but I recommend either removing the sentence or add to it to highlight the particular aspects of her audition that impressed Mendes. Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence as it is rather silly. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Marlohe also paid close attention to the soundtracks of the earlier films, saying that she focused on "respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies". " I'm not sure what this sentence means. She listened to the music of the earlier films and that affected her acting decisions?
 * Revised it to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even with your edit, I’m not sure what this means in concrete terms. I haven’t read the source but, for example, if it said something like that she used the mysteriouness/aggression/sexiness/whatever of the music to help her get into character, that is something I could understand more clearly. Moisejp (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. She did not specify a certain element (i.e. "mysteriouness/aggression/sexiness/whatever") of it necessarily, other than she listened to the soundtrack to get a better handle of the overall tone/spirit of the franchise. Here is the quote from the article about it: (Marlohe immersed herself in the past Bond films, honing in on the diverse musicality of the series. “The music helped me understand the spirit, so I can give my contribution, building my character in the best way, respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies.”). I apologize for asking this, but do you have any suggestions for this? Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph seems to jump around and has no clear cohesiveness about its overall topic. It talks about her dream she'd get the part, then practicing firearms for the part, then about her listening to music of earlier films, then about how the film led to other career opportunities. I might suggest considering breaking up the para and moving each sentence somewhere more appropriate. Possible ideas:
 * The first sentence of paragraph two could be put at the end of the paragraph one.
 * I have moved to the first paragraph, but I put it before the sentence on the two auditions to hopefully make some sort of flow. Please let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The second sentence, while interesting, may not clearly belong in the Casting and influences section. Maybe it better belongs in the Skyfall main article?
 * Good point, and it is also a pretty minor point that does not really connect with anything. Also, since the character never used firearms on the show, I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The third sentence, if you can get it to work more clearly, could go in the final (currently third) paragraph.
 * Moved to the third paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The fourth sentence could go at the end of the first para. In this way, you would have paragraph 1 about "casting" and paragraph 2 about "influences". Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved to the first paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Characterization:
 * “When asked to define the traits of a Bond girl, she perceived the role as "a powerful woman with a kind of male charisma and male power" and a "bit of animality”.” I’d argue “perceived” is a little awkward here because it suggests a longer-lasting verb, whereas “When asked” suggests something prompted at a specific moment in time. Moisejp (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I’m not saying you should necessarily remove it but just saying I found the part a bit pretentious and unconvincing where she says she wanted to portray more than just a Bond girl but a real human being. I found myself thinking, “Don’t all actors normally strive to bring depth to their characterization? Don’t all actors want to feel like their performance is multidimensional? Don’t talk about it, just do the performance and let it speak for itself.” That’s my reaction to that part of the article, which mentions “human being” three times. I feel it would be a little more engaging if that component was reduced even slightly. But if you argue that that’s not a reaction to the article (but rather to what she says), and you’re just reporting what she says, then I’d say ok, don’t change it. Moisejp (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and I completely agree with your reasoning. I have revised the portion. I have removed the first "human being" quote as it is a rather silly inclusion and I wanted the sentence to focus on her inspiration from the "chimera". I kept the second "human being" quote primarily for how she talks about the "Bond girl" concept, which I find interesting and noteworthy enough for inclusion. Let me know what you think. Hopefully, I made it better. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * “while Yahoo!'s Frank DiGiacomo regarded the character as complicated”. Again, I’m not sure that just “complicated” is very useful or illuminating information for the reader. Moisejp (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I have removed the part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * “Sévérine has a titular instrumental track on the film's soundtrack,[18] which is a "string-drenched" piece playing during her sex scene with Bond.[19] To pass China's censorship laws, references to prostitution were removed from the subtitles. Sévérine's tattoo was changed from a symbol of a Chinese sex trafficking operation to that of a gang.” With more information about the specific character of the track than just “string-drenched”, the first sentence could arguably be considered to be about characterization. But I don’t know that the second sentence belongs here. Maybe it could be moved to a footnote where the tattoo is first mentioned? Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I have moved the tattoo bit to a footnote (I really should use footnotes more in the future). I have removed the sentence on the soundtrack, as I cannot locate the "string-drenched" quote again for some reason and I cannot locate any further information on the soundtrack piece. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aoba. I apologize I’ve been really busy but plan to get back to this review ASAP. One thing, though, is I think you may have missed seeing this comment []. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Take as much time as you need. I greatly appreciate all of your help during this review. You have helped to improve the article a great deal already. I have replied to your above comment, and I apologize for missing it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aoba, continuing with the Characterization section, I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, but I feel it is the weakest section of the article. Maybe this ties in a bit with the comments that SarahSV made above, particularly about "sentences [that] don't really say much, if anything." The level of analysis that the different citations give is in some cases a little shallow. I'm obviously not proposing that everything needs to be removed, but perhaps if you weeded out some of the least satisfying citations—and where information is available if you developed more some of the points—the overall average for the section would improve. Going through this section:
 * The first paragraph, including the points about the chimera, seems overall relatively decent. It's a bit contradictory that on one hand she agrees to define Bond girls (implying that her character is one), but right after she distances her character from the category. And I still think it makes her sound a little pretentious and not very smart that she emphasizes she wants her characterization to portray "a real human being". But overall, this paragraph works well enough for me, and I wouldn't insist that it be changed.
 * The second paragraph, however, jumps around from one quote to the next without any unity, and without the individual quotes telling us of anything of substance.
 * She's a "femme-fatale" and a "anti-heroine"—maybe if these were developed on, they would be meaningful, but just by themselves, I don't think they are.
 * "mix of good and evil, strong and vulnerable, aloof and up for some intimacy with the ever-seductive 007": Again, feels like shallow analysis. It doesn't tell us much that we can sink our teeth into to try to understand the character a bit.
 * "set of morals comparable to Bond": This could be something if it was developed more, with specifics, for example.
 * "personality as a combination of sex appeal, deception, and fear": Again, sorry, this seems not deep enough or meaningful without more development. And can we say "fear" is a really a component of personality? I'm not even totally sure we can say "sex appeal" and "deception" are truly components of personality. Somebody being "deceptive" and "confident of their sexuality" could be.
 * The last sentence in the paragraph is not even really about characterization in terms of character traits or personality. It's about the role she plays in the story, which might fit better in a plot analysis.
 * When I originally constructed this paragraph, I had envisioned it revolving around the character's representation as an anti-heroine and a femme fatale. Since it was not successful, I decided to just remove a lot of the information at this point. I personally found the information interesting, but since a majority of the people on here disagree, I just removed the entire second paragraph and moved the last sentence to a part of the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In the third paragraph "She also thought more critically about Sévérine's relationship with Silva, saying: "I just built everything with my imagination, and that is very exciting, too, because there's room for accidents on set." " makes Marlohe sound like not somebody one would take seriously, in my view. She talks about using her "imagination". That's what actors do, they use their imagination. She comes across as a silly actress who needs to tell everyone how she "uses her imagination" to play "real human beings". Maybe if in your sources there are other quotations that portray her in a better light, it could be an idea to replace them.
 * I find that an odd interpretation of the quote to be honest (there are plenty of male and female actors that talk about similar ideas), but I have decided to remove the sentence given your advice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "GMA Network's Mikhail Lecaros wrote that Marlohe approached the character with a "bemused cynicism" ": Like the other media quotations above, this needs to be developed more.
 * Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you tell me in this section what your concept is for presenting the various points in a unified, coherent progression. As I mentioned above, the points seem to jump around a bit aimlessly (but maybe I just missed the progression you were aiming for). I would like to suggest that if you have any doubt about the unity and progression of the ideas, consider looking for which points could go together to improve the cohesiveness of the narrative. Moisejp (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just decided to remove a lot of the sentences since a majority of the reviewers on here took issue with it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar
Just read through the article. I've arrived late to the FAC and thus can't raise any issues as I couldn't find any. Although I do think it might be a good idea to link Macau in its first mention (for accessibility's sake), but other than that the prose is of an excellent standard and I couldn't find any issues with the sourcing either, so I'll go ahead and support this. If a source review hasn't already been performed I could go ahead and spotcheck the sources? JAG UAR   19:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment and your support. I have added the link for Macau as suggested. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for Withdrawal/Archive
First, I would like to thank everyone that helped me with this and provided comments, but I would like to withdraw this nomination at this point. Could either or  please archive this? I know that everyone has been trying to help, but it is very disheartening to see a significant amount of negative criticism given to my approach to the article. I know that I should not take it personally, but it still stings given the amount of time and energy I put into my articles without getting much in the way of real approval. I am no longer proud of this article (or really a majority of my work) and I just want to take a break from the FAC process and this site as a whole for a while. I just do not find working on this site in my spare time fun or meaningful anymore, especially since I am not really a good editor or contributor. Thank you again everyone, but I just want this nomination to be done at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Aoba47, I'll action your withdrawal request. FTR, I don't think anyone is questioning your editing talents in general -- the FAs to your credit did not happen by luck -- so I hope it won't be long before we see you here again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.