Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scarlett Johansson/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2017.

Scarlett Johansson

 * Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson has made quite a name for herself from beginning acting from the age of seven to becoming one of Hollywood's biggest stars. She is also quite often in the lists of sexiest women in the world, which contributes significantly to her public image. I saw some of her films not long ago and liked her in them.

Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews, and do not have anything controversial so I think they should be okay for use here. I also feel the article might have many quotes, but I believe they are important and add to the article and her personality. Should someone object to it, I will do my best to address their concerns. Thanks to anyone and everyone for taking the time. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from regarding the sources, but there is documentation regarding fabricated quotes and interviews for at least one of them, haven't checked others. Strongly suggest you reconsider that approach, and only include what can be reliably sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed the Daily Mail source, the other one is IndieLondon, not sure how you feel about it. Will go through the sources again tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review
All images appear to be properly licensed, but only Scarlett Johansson.jpg currently has alt text. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, added.


 * Scarlett Johansson 2003.jpg (At the premiere of Girl with a Pearl Earring) still seems to lack alt text. Moisejp (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not. Pls look again and you'll find the alt text.
 * My apologies. When I was skimming I mistook where the end of the caption ended. Great, images all look good! Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For the "her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks" aspect, I would think that WP:In-text attribution would not be appropriate if there are multiple or various sources stating this. In-text attribution could make it seem like it's just according to that one person or media outlet. But I see that this has been resolved by adding "the media" in front of "considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Support Interesting piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

 * Happy to support this. Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Before we promote, I wonder if or  could have a last look at the prose and see if we are good to go from a 1a viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from John
I had a preliminary look. It's a nice article, almost ready to go. Few too many quotes and I'm sure I saw an "it was revealed" in there. I'll have a better look in the next days. --John (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From a Ctrl+F search, it appears that there is one instance of "it was revealed" in paragraph 3 of Personal life. I haven't changed it yet as I don't know the optimal replacement, but feel free to change it as you please. I'm sure you didn't need me to find it, but I agree that it's not quite encyclopedic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have taken out the revealed part (which was there before I expanded the article and somehow missed it) and have summarized a small number of quotes. FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC) just a gentle reminder. FrB.TG (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry to be such a pain in the arse. I understand you might be busy but when you get time, it would be really great if you could continue your review if you have more to add. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I apologise for having been too busy to look at this over the past days. I will look at it tonight before I go to bed. --John (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Section by section:

Lead
 * Her achievements include being among the world's highest-paid actresses from 2014 to 2016: the link is a bit eggy, isn't it?
 * Off-Broadway is usually hyphenated, I think.
 * She was nominated for Golden Globe Awards for these films feels like it needs a number in front of "Golden".
 * the 2013 comedy-drama Her; do we need that hyphen? --John (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All done. FrB.TG
 * Thank you. I took the liberty of signing for you. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Early life
 * Johansson's mother, Melanie Sloan, a producer, comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family of Polish Jewish and Belarusian Jewish descent whose family surname was originally "Szlamberg". Having three "Jewish"s in quick succession makes this a jangly sentence. Some creative piping maybe, if we really need all three links. Is her ethnic heritage really worthy of such detailed discussion?
 * Growing up, her family had limited financial means. Almost everybody in the world can say this. Do we mean she was poor? What do the sources say?
 * She was particularly fond of musical theater, describing herself as "one of those jazz-hands kids". (quote no 1) I am deeply unsatisfied by this quote. What does this even mean?
 * I always had the chance to do whatever I wanted to do, my parents were very open about that [...] Acting has been a passion of mine. I wanted to be in musicals as a kid, and took tap dance, so for me it's a dream come true, my childhood was filled with things that I loved to do, and also very normal things: I lived in New York, I have a family life and went to a regular school. If anything, I look back and think, 'Wow, I did a lot of things that a lot of people don't get to do in their lifetime'. (quote no 2) There's good stuff here but why is it a pull quote? Is this a quote that people often refer to her by? I don't see why this can't be summarised and/or shortened.
 * I have paraphrased most of it but have retained a small part of it, which I think is better in her own words.


 * Determined, she decided to become an actress anyway. I don't like this. I think I'd recast this and the previous one into one sentence.
 * She remembers being on the set of the film, recalling, "for some reason, I just knew what to do, instinctively. It was like, I don't know ... fate." (quote no 3) I think this can happily be summarised too. Remember, there is nothing to stop the vital parts of a quote being shunted into a reference or a footnote, for those who really need to read every word. All of these quotes so far are pretty mundane and probably apply to a great many actors. We just need an encyclopedic gist, not chapter and verse. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Early roles (1996–2002)
 * "Unfortunately, because it's adults writing these scripts, it's tough [for young actors to find realistic roles]. The problem is adults portray kids like mall rats and not seriously ... Kids and teenagers just aren't being portrayed with any real depth." —Johansson on finding good roles as a teenager (quote no 4) Again, this is a great and telling quote, but I don't think it needs to be quoted in full and I don't think it needs to be a pull quote.
 * Quotes no 4-8 are what seem to me like well-chosen quotes from reviewers and I am fine with them. I particularly liked On Johansson's maturity, Redford described her as "13 going on 30". (quote no 7)
 * Nominated for the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Most Promising Actress for the film, Johansson believed that it "changed things for me in a lot of ways [...] I went through this realization that acting, at its heart, is the ability to manipulate your own emotions." (quote no 9) In this case I don't think the quote adds anything. It can best be summarised. I also don't like the sentence structure, I would recast that.
 * Quotes 10 and 11 are fine with me. It's getting late here. I may have one more section in me tonight. In any case I'll try to finish up by this time tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Transition to adult roles (2003–2004)
 * Comedy-drama again. Is this a recognised term? With or without the hyphen? I know we have an article on it, but it isn't a very good article. I genuinely don't know here.
 * Although certainly not the best, our article hyphenates it as does this.


 * I think the whole first para could be reorganised. No issue with Ebert's quote (no 10) nor no 11 from Entertainment Weekly.
 * Webber interviewed 150 girls before Johansson was cast for the part. could read as patronising or even sexist. These were adult women, albeit young. They wouldn't be interviewing guys for a female role; why state the gender at all? Just say "150 young actors".
 * He felt the actress "just stood out. She had something distinctive about her. (quote no 12) seems fluffy and inessential.
 * Quotes no 13 and 14 are ok, I suppose. We don't need "similarly" though. They aren't that similar.
 * Johansson had five releases in 2004, three of which—the teen heist film The Perfect Score, the drama A Love Song for Bobby Long, and the drama A Good Woman, adapted from Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan—were critical and commercial failures. is good material but too long and meandering for a sentence.
 * Opined  See WP:SAID. "Wrote" is fine.
 * Johansson voiced the role of Princess Mindy, the daughter of King Neptune Do we need "the role of"?
 * She agreed to do the film because of her love for cartoons and the animated series The Ren & Stimpy Show (1991–1995). Awkward sentence. Surely The Ren & Stimpy Show is a cartoon? And do we need the dates?
 * ...who is nearly half his age... is clumsy and ambiguous. "much younger" would be fine I think.
 * Fine with quotes 15 and 16. --John (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have done most of these things except where I have noted otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Films with Woody Allen (2005–2009)
 * In Johansson and Rhys Meyers The New York Times saw some of the best acting in an Allen film in a long time, and Mick LaSalle, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, said that Johansson "is a powerhouse from the word go", with a performance that "borders on astonishing". The sentence structure is off-putting; I had to read this twice to parse it. Ok with quote no 17 (I'll keep the same numbering scheme for simplicity, even though I know you have now removed some.)
 * The film received mixed reviews and grossed $162,949,164 against a $126 million budget. I'd be inclined to round the first number to $163 million.
 * Ebert was critical of the film, but found Johansson "lovely as always", and Mick LaSalle opined that she "brings deftness and freshness" to her part. Not sure we need the first quote (no 18); neutral on the second (19).
 * Johansson later said she was a fan of De Palma and had wanted to work with him on the film. Nonetheless, she thought that she was "physically wrong" for the part, and Anne Billson of The Daily Telegraph likewise found her miscast. I'm not a fan of "Nonetheless", and I don't think the quote (no 20) is merited. I think these two sentences could be rewritten into one.
 * CNN noted that she "takes to the pulpy period atmosphere as if it were oxygen". Quote no 21 can happily be summarised.
 * Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning.


 * Also in 2006, Johansson starred in the short film When the Deal Goes Down, directed by Bennett Miller, set to Bob Dylan's song "When the Deal Goes Down...", released to promote his album, Modern Times. This is not a FA sentence.
 * Nolan, who was interested in having Johansson play the role, described her as possessing an "ambiguity" and "a shielded quality" (quote no 21) is ok, I suppose, but the sentence should be recast.
 * The film was both a critical and box office success, recommended by the Los Angeles Times as "an adult, provocative piece of work". (quote no 22) Fine but lose "both".
 * Some critics were skeptical of her performance: Anne Billson referred to her as miscast, and Dan Jolin in Empire magazine criticized her English accent, writing that she "forgets to engage her audience, trilling the film's only bum note" "Referred" sounds a wee bit WP:SAID again; have you read elegant variation? Quote no 23 is gratuitous and could be removed, perhaps to a footnote.
 * Quotes 24-28 are fine I guess, but I dislike "garnered". "Earned"?
 * Quote 29 is ok but "labelled" is elegant variation.

Marvel Cinematic Universe and stage roles (2010–2013)
 * Set in the 1950s, in an Italian-American neighborhood in New York, it tells the tragic tale of Eddie (played by Liev Schreiber), who has an inappropriate love for his wife's orphaned niece, Catherine (played by Johansson). Johansson was initially uncomfortable playing a teenage character, but later agreed to do the play after a friend convinced her to take on the part. The repetition of the subject's name is awkward. These sentences could be recast to flow better.
 * Ben Brantley of The New York Times wrote of Johansson's performance that she "melts into her character so thoroughly that her nimbus of celebrity disappears". This quote (no 30) can be summarised I think.
 * Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Tim Robey of The Daily Telegraph quote (no 31) could be summarised. --John (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Otherwise I have done these things. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking good, thank you. On we go.


 * ... it examines the relationships among members of the family of Big Daddy... -> it examines the relationships within the family of Big Daddy
 * Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who admitted to being a fan of his acting work "Admitted" is a bit like "revealed". It's the language a tabloid uses to titillate its subliterate readers. I prefer "Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who had previously admired his acting work."
 * Claudia Puig of USA Today (no 31) can stay.
 * "speaks Samantha in tones sweet, sexy, caring, manipulative and scary" (no 32); I find the quote a bit icky. Could we possibly just use the adjectives?
 * Johansson improvised her conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who were unknowingly participating in the film; these scenes were filmed with hidden cameras. -> Johansson improvised conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who did not know they were being filmed.

Recent work (2014–present)
 * Johansson was attracted to her character's way of doing her job, employing her feminine wiles and not her sexuality and physical appeal Just "physical appeal" would be fine here, I think.
 * Odie Henderson (quote no 33) is fine, as is Richard Roeper (34).
 * The Jim Vejvoda quote (35) can be summarised.
 * Johansson's pregnancy -> "her pregnancy"
 * Earlier in 2016, Johansson featured in Coen brothers' critically acclaimed comedy film Hail, Caesar! needs a "the" in front of "Coen brothers". I don't like "critically acclaimed" either; almost everything has been "acclaimed" by at least one critic. Was it "well-reviewed" or "positively received"? Either of these would be better, if the sources support it.
 * Johansson played the cyborg, supersoldier Motoko Kusanagi in Rupert Sanders's 2017 film adaptation of the Ghost in the Shell franchise The comma is awkward, and aren't all supersoldiers cyborgs? One link or the other maybe?
 * The film received mixed reviews: it was praised...  -> The film was praised...

Music career
 * She performed with the Jesus and Mary Chain for a special Coachella reunion show in Indio, California, in April 2007. What was "special" about it? Aren't all reunions "special"? I would just remove this.
 * Johansson later spoke of the opportunity she had to record the album, adding, "I thought I would do maybe an album of standards, because I'm not a songwriter. I'm a vocalist." (no 39) This adds nothing at all. I would just remove this too.
 * added her voice to -> "sang on"
 * In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles. It is made up of... -> "In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles with..."
 * The first single released by the group was called "Candy". -> "The group's first single was called "Candy"."

Personal life
 * Johansson is reluctant to discuss her personal life, saying, "It's nice to have everybody not know your business." I am agnostic on quote no 40. I'd probably completely remove this, on the basis that she seems to have discussed her personal life quite a bit; the source this quote is drawn from also includes ""Contrary to popular belief, I am not promiscuous", and I think by including this we are falling into the trap of reporting her words about herself in Wikipedia's voice. I'd certainly remove the quote.
 * In November 2012, Johansson started dating Frenchman Romain Dauriac... This paragraph is very choppy and needs an edit or two. Too many short sentences.
 * They separated in the summer of 2016. -> "They separated in mid-2016." (WP:SEASON)
 * Johansson was awarded $3,400, a fraction of the $68,000 she had claimed. -> "Johansson was awarded $3,400; she had claimed $68,000." --John (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Public image
 * Johansson is described as a sex symbol by the media, which considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks. All of the media? Trademarks? This isn't quite right.
 * There are two sources supporting it. It would sound strange to say this and this or some of the media consider these her trademarks. Of course it does not mean all of the media, but the general. I can find other sources saying these things about her, but I failed to find one that says "the media says these things".


 * A string of three medium-sized quotations (41-43, unless I've missed one or two) by guys who think she is sexy, including Woody Allen. Hmm. This is perhaps a case for sending the quotes to the reference and just say they have gone on record commenting on her attractiveness. Then her quote about it, which I suppose is fine but could just as easily be summarised.
 * The Woody Allen quote sounds unnecessary, yes, but I believe comments from Sydney Morning Herald and New Yorker can be kept and are relevant in my opinion.


 * Johansson's sex appeal also cost her the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part. -> "Johansson lost the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part."
 * What is the pull-quote about? What does it mean? What does it relate to? Is it something frequently quoted by her?
 * This one should be fine in my opinion; she talks about how she approaches roles or how she acts. This looks like a distinctive quote to me.


 * After appearing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute Gala with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, Johansson was announced as the face of the new Dolce & Gabbana make-up collection in early 2009. She made a personal appearance at the London store, Selfridges, in July 2009 to help launch and promote the line We don't need the date it was announced, just the actual date it happened is fine.

Other ventures
 *  took part in social advocacy as part of the anti-poverty campaign ONE, sounds interesting. What social advocacy did she take part in? The source doesn't say.
 * Source (page four) only says she took part in it. No particular what she did.


 * The two quotes regarding Oxfam and SodaStream really add nothing (I've lost count now but I reckon we were well over 40). It's fine just to say why she withdrew, without the two quotes to support it.
 * Of George W. Bush's 2004 reelection, she said, "[I am] disappointed. I think it was a disappointment for a large percentage of the population." -> "When George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, she said she was disappointed."
 * Johansson publicly endorsed and supported Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's 2013 run for New York City Comptroller by hosting a series of fundraisers. I'm not sure what a private endorsement would look like. Just "supported" would be fine. Does this even merit a mention?
 * She elaborated, "Once the heaviness [of the election] began to subside, an opportunity has presented itself to make real long-term change, not just for future Americans, but in the way we view our responsibility to get involved with and stay active in our communities. Let this weight not drag you down, but help to get your heels stuck in." This looks like yet another self-serving quote. Vanity Fair has a more interesting take on it, that she was advocating for Planned Parenthood based on her own experience with the organisation.
 * There is a similar one from LA Times already used in the article.

That concludes my first pass on 1a grounds. --John (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I have addressed these as well. FrB.TG (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you ok with these edits? I finished this second phase of the review tonight. --John (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Final nips and tucks
 * Yeah, thank you for that and also for your thorough review. When expanding a BLP next time, I’ll make sure I keep the quotes limited to the good ones. FrB.TG (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FrB.TG, regarding those series of edits, I restored the "ScarJo" quote here (followup note here); I did this because the nickname aspect does not flow well with the "sexiest list"/Madame Tussauds New York paragraph, and I think it's better to address why Johansson dislikes the nickname. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We can also summarize her reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have paraphrased the quote and let it be part of the prose, which I think is better. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I take it that you don't think the "associate that name with pop stars" part is needed? It does seem that people would think of J.Lo when reading it and take it as an insult with regard to pop stars. I'm not sure if we should mention the pop stars part or not. The gist is that she finds the name lazy and flippant; so your summary gets that across. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I wonder if "insulting" should be replaced with "flippant." Apparently, she finds the name disrespectful and something not giving her the seriousness she deserves; so I wonder if "flippant," which is a synonym for "disrespectful," gets that across better. But then again, "insulting" is more commonly used than "flippant." We could also use the word "disrespectful." If you think it's fine as is, I'm okay with that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2017‎ (UTC)


 * Changed to this. I don't think readers are likely to get what she means by "violent," especially outside of the quote. I don't even understand what she means by it. So I added "flippant" in its place. She uses both "flippant" and "insulting," and these two words don't always automatically mean the same thing; so I think it's fine to include both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's definitely getting there. I still have a question about why we have used the source:

Do you feel like any of the characters you’ve played have been close to who you actually are?

All of the characters are close to who I am in some ways. The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act. So there is a part of me in every role that I play. For better or worse.


 * and truncated it to

"The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act." —Johansson on her approach to acting


 * It seems to me we've omitted the question she was responding to, and the first and last sentences of her response, and added on the explanation that the quote is "on her approach to acting". It seems rather to be about how she feels about the characters she plays. I don't like it, and I don't see that is belongs as a pull quote in a section about her "Public image". --John (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. FrB.TG (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry for another ping. Would you mind finishing your review, as I’d like to see this nom conclude. FrB.TG (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Last few niggles.


 * She remembers being on the set of the film, knowing instinctively what to do. Would you mind if we recast this as "She says that when she was on the film set, she knew intuitively what to do"? The "-ing" form is jarring, especially when repeated twice in a sentence, and this wasn't instinct but perhaps more intuitiveness.
 * I'm aware that alt text for images isn't essential for FA any more, but I like them and if we are going to have them they should be more descriptive. For example, the one for File:Lee Strasberg Institute 115 East 15th Street.jpg should not read A picture of the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute. but something more like "A red-brick three-story building with a tree outside it" so as to actually provide info for people who can't see the picture, rather than just duplicate the caption.
 * Where's the sourcing that Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media and fans? One source says it is "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using" is sourced to an archived article on Yahoo.com, maybe not the strongest of sources. I do prefer my version which was "Johansson has been called "ScarJo" by the media and fans, but dislikes it." but really the "and fans" is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed. --John (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "and fans" part, but I do think that her reason to dislike the nickname should be retained in prose rather than in footnote in quotes. I liked other suggestions. FrB.TG (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem with that, but I think that we are struggling even with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media. What does "commonly" even mean here? I don't see it in the Guardian coverage, for example. And thanks for implementing my suggestion for the alt text but I think all or most of them would need to be similarly adjusted. --John (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think. FrB.TG (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The point of "commonly" was the point that all qualifiers have. And we do use qualifiers, such generally or typically (and, yeah, commonly too), on Wikipedia. Qualifiers such as these let readers know that it's not an "always" matter. The wording "prone to using" is also something that lets one know that it's not an "always" or "solely" matter. Johansson is not solely called "ScarJo" by the media, but it's common enough that she's commented on it multiple times. That stated, I can live with the removal of "commonly" for the piece. "Fans" should be there as well since she's called this by fans too. But since "fans" is not sourced, we'll have to do without it for now. I obviously agree with FrB.TG that Johansson's reasons for disliking the nickname should be retained. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't "the media" in general though, at least according to our sources, it is "gossip magazines"; can you live with this? --John (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess. I don't know about The Guardian, but Rolling Stone and Variety have. Not sure if that qualifies as the media in general though. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Per this CBS News source and this The Sydney Morning Herald source, it is not just the media who calls her ScarJo; it is the general pubic, as in the media and fans, which is the original wording I used per the sources. The CBS source, which had been in the article before, states, "Your fame means that your name has been reduced to acronym that everybody uses." The Sydney Morning Herald states, "Johansson has said she finds the nickname insulting and wants her fans to stop using it." So we have sources noting that the media and her fans call her "ScarJo," and that she strongly dislikes this. One source stating "a gossip magazine mainstay" does not mean that gossip magazines alone call her "ScarJo." Per the sources, it's clear that people in general call her that, not just gossip magazines. Indeed, one source that John cited above states "the name that the media is prone to using," which means the "media commonly calls her this." We have sources stating the "media" and "fans." Per this, I removed John's wording of "certain sections of the media." Use of "certain sections of the media" is not wording employed by any of the sources and it's WP:Weasel wording because it makes people wonder "Which sections?" when reading it. I changed the wording to "by the public," and supported this with the CBS News source, which says that "everybody uses" the nickname "ScarJo." I also changed the Yahoo! source to The Sydney Morning Herald source for Johansson's interview since John expressed hesitancy about using the Yahoo! source. I was going to use the Glamour magazine source as a direct source, but I didn't see the part where Johansson comments on the matter when I clicked on URLs for it (such as this one, which only shows photos and has brief descriptions). And since The Sydney Morning Herald uses the word "fans," that was a plus per my previous "and fans" argument. I re-added "commonly" per what I stated above and in this paragraph (it's more accurate and flows better), but we can remove that again. I also re-added "is," because there is no indication that Johansson being called "ScarJo" is a past matter and not a present matter as well.


 * I don't see that we need to spend any more time on this particular aspect. Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by both the media and fans, very much dislikes, and we note this. Simple. Let's move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I can't live with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the public on a BLP FAC as it is introducing a synthesis from sources which speak of acronym that everybody uses (although it clearly is an acronym it clearly isn't used by everybody, so I would distrust this source) and ones that refer to "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using"; how, do we get from there to 'commonly called "ScarJo" by the public'? I'm sure there is a good compromise out there, but this isn't it. --John (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * John, "commonly" is no more WP:Synthesis than your use of "certain sections of the media." When we look at the definition of "tend," we see that it means "regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic." So how is a reliable source stating "the name that the media is prone to using" not the same thing as "the name that the media commonly calls her"? As for the CBS News source stating "an acronym that everybody uses," the source obviously does not mean that everyone in the world uses the name, just like sources don't mean that all critics hated a film when they state "critics panned the film." There is no reason to take such a strict reading of sources and forgo WP:Common sense. We are allowed to use synonyms. As for distrusting sources, it is CBS News; it is undoubtedly a reliable source. So are the Rolling Stone and Variety sources above. There is nothing that says we must use a The Guardian source instead. We go by what reliable sources state. And the CBS News source is speaking of the the fact Johansson is widely called "ScarJo." So, per the sources, we can leave the text as "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the public.", which is not ideal to me since it leaves out the important "commonly" qualifier, or we can add "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." We have reliable sources stating "media" and "fans." I don't see what is so contentious about this text you keep disputing. I did remove "commonly" (followup note here), despite "tend to" being a synonym for "frequently" and "frequently" being a synonym for "commonly." Stating "Johansson is frequently called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." would also work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Above, John stated, "I do prefer my version which was 'Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it.' but really the 'and fans' is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed." Per this and what I stated above, I have changed the text to "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." The first source (the Yahoo! source) states "media" and the second source (the The Sydney Morning Herald source) states "fans." The text is completely supported by the sources. And as stated before, use of "is" happens to be more accurate than "has been" in this case. And use of "the media and fans" obviously does not mean all of the media and fans, which is why adding the qualifier "commonly" or "frequently" is better. It's why one source states "prone to." But I trust that our readers will have common sense, just like they will know that "she is described as a sex symbol by the media" does not mean every media outlet ever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: Maybe noting here that some scholarly sources call her "ScarJo" or specifically comment on the "ScarJo" aspect will help show how common and notable the "ScarJo" nickname is. For example, this 2015 "The Oxford Handbook of the Word" source, from OUP Oxford, page 1019, states, "A small set of public celebrity nicknames combine a forename initial with a truncation of the surname [...] Forms that combine forename and surname truncations, such as Cujo for Curtis Joseph or ScarJo for Scarlett Johansson, are also found." This 2016 "The Palgrave Handbook of Posthumanism in Film and Television" source, from Springer, page 42, flat out uses "ScarJo" in its title for a section when analyzing some of Johansson's films. The only reason we even mention "ScarJo" in the Wikipedia article is because of how common it is and because Johansson has stated multiple times that she dislikes it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , by stating "the media", we certainly do not mean all of the media. I don't think this "all of the media" point applies anywhere as that is not true in any case. Since there are many reliable sources that have called her that, I think it is currently okay, although, if I am being honest, I wasn't a big fan of "commonly" either. I have added an "often" there to imply that they do not always call her that. Hope it works now. FrB.TG (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How about ? I think putting her dislike first is important, and I think "some" is fairer than "often". I had never heard of it before undertaking this review, and although I take your examples as given, I'm not sure we have the sources to say "often" and there seem to be sources which never use the nickname. It might seem silly to press this point, but it is slightly running into BLP and the principle of "do no harm", so it's important to get it right. As far as I'm aware this is my last outstanding point. --John (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * John, I'm trying to understand your issue with the text, but I can't. Your latest suggested wording doesn't flow well and it's unnecessary WP:Weasel wording. "Some media" begs the question of "which media?", and, as FrB.TG and I have shown, it's not just the gossip media calling her this. You stated that you had never heard of it and that some sources don't call her this. But that does not negate how common the nickname is. I can point to numerous things that are common with regard to a specific topic, but that some or many editors have never heard of. The fact that all of the media has not referred to her as "ScarJo" does not mean that the nickname is not common. If it were not common, I highly doubt that the first scholarly book I cited above would have taken the time to mention it. I highly doubt that Johansson would have taken the time to comment on the topic multiple times. I highly doubt that sources would state "prone to using" and "an acronym that everybody uses." If it's not used as much now as it once was, that is because some of the media have respected Johansson's wishes. But we don't have sources noting this decrease in usage. As for use of "often," it is supported by "prone to," which equates to "tends to." I've already linked to what "tend" means, for anyone needing to see a definition of it and its synonyms. But, like I noted before, we can forgo a qualifier in this case, even though a qualifier would be better. You take issue with "often," even though sources and Google searches show that it is an "often" matter, but sources don't state "some" on this issue. They are clear that the nickname is widely used. Again, you proposed the following: "Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it." The only difference between that and the current wording (besides the fact that we note why she dislikes the name) is that "often" is included (which, again, is something we can remove) and that "is" takes the place of "has been." The current wording, which is supported by ample evidence, is nowhere close to harming Johansson. It's not a WP:BLP violation. This is nothing to spend so much time on, or fail an article over. FrB.TG has done a wonderful job on the article, and this piece is a minor aspect of it.


 * All that stated, why don't we just go back to your "has been" wording? The text would read as follows: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I changed the text back to "has been." Can you live with this, John? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that works. FrB.TG, Flyer22 Reborn, it's been a pleasure to work with you. I think (without having checked) that this may be my most exacting FAC, but I think the quality of the article speaks of the thoroughness of the reviews it has undergone. I'm sure there are still minor improvements to be made but this is now at FA standard. Support. --John (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. This might be the most thorough review in any of my FACs. I am grateful for all of your contributions. FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Glad that things have finally worked out. Happy Thanksgiving Eve to everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: FrB.TG and John, the Public image section currently states: "Johansson dislikes being objectified as she believes it does not last." To me, this line implies that she would like being objectified if it did last. It previously stated, "Regardless, Johansson dislikes being 'super-sexualised' as 'the new Marilyn Monroe' and 'always be[ing] an object of desire. Because it doesn't last.'" I feel that it would be better to state the following: And it seems that we should drop this source since it doesn't show her stating that she dislikes it, and instead simply retain the second source...which does show her stating that? I also think use of "sexualized" is better per the sources and that some outlets that praise Johansson's looks likely don't think that they are objectifying her. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Your version is much better. On a side note, is this ready to be closed now, ? FrB.TG (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor change here. Flows okay, I think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TriiipleThreat
Do we really need images of Robert Redford and Tom Waits? Images add a lot of WP:WEIGHT to particular pieces of information and by adding these images, they appear to diminish Johansson's own accomplishments by shifting responsibility to these artist. It seems the prose alone would be sufficient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many images of Johansson herself; the two images of these two men hardly diminish her accomplishments. I have made two simple statements in the images, that Redford gave Johansson her breakthrough role and Johansson's first album was based on works of Waits. Julianne Moore, for example, an FA, has images of her directors. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s right there either.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the merits of these images, I wouldn't base anything on the status of Julianne Moore. I wouldn't support its promotion if it was at FAC and it seems to have had a very easy (ie incomplete) review back in 2013. --John (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly did not base it on that. I only mentioned that article to state that it is not uncommon to also add images that not of the subject itself. FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I took the time to read the Julianne Moore article, and I think it is very well-written. I know that the quoteboxes there may not be some editors' style, but, in my opinion, it's still an article worthy of being a featured article. At Featured article candidates/Julianne Moore/archive1, there are not as many reviewers there as there are here, but there are some editors there who are experienced FAC reviewers (and are even more experienced years later). The reviewing process seen there is not much different than the one seen here, although one aspect here had a slightly prolonged debate. All that stated, comparing the promoted version to the current version, we see that the Robert Altman image was not there in the promoted version. Sure, a Jeff Bridges image is there, but it's an image of Moore and Bridges. He's not by himself. Same goes for the Colin Firth image. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the male images at this (the Scarlett Johansson) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I'm not sure these image issues, or the status of another article, are relevant to this FAC and any further discussion of the images can take place on the article talk page. Well done to all concerned here for a robust but very civil FAC! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 23 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.