Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jessica Chastain on screen and stage/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC).

Jessica Chastain on screen and stage

 * Nominator(s): Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

After a long hiatus from Wikipedia, I am back with my 19th FLC nomination on the lovely Jessica Chastain. Hope to receive constructive criticism, as before. Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - based on comprehensiveness and coverage. I don't find it very detailed, and that's partly because each table is quite short because of her comparatively few film appearances compared to others. I don't think it represents the best of Wikipedia, and it's quite premature in my opinion. I would rather see a longer list. I don't see why it's not just called "Jessica Chastain filmography" either. The wording of the current title sounds more like it should be a prose article, not a list, and that's actually what I was expecting to see when I clicked on the Wikilink. I find the lead a bit choppy too. it's just short, successive sentences that aren't that interesting to read, and it's more like a chronological re-telling of what we can gather ourselves from the list. I'd rather see more about the characters she has played and critical responses, awards and nominations, not just what year she was in each film. — Calvin999 12:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: "_______ on stage and screen" is frequently used for actors and actresses with theater credits. A common alternative is "_______ performances". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but for me it sounds more like it should be a prose article. Using 'filmography', we know it's a table or list. — Calvin999  09:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, your reasoning for the oppose are based on your personal opinion and not on an existing criteria. I urge you to read the FL criteria before such a drastic opposition to the nomination. I'm sorry but "it sounds more like it should be a prose article" is not a strong justification. Also, no filmography list provides a list of critic reviews - however, this list, wherever possible, and without being tedious to read, provides details of her major award wins and nominations, as well as the critical and commercial performance of her most notable films. It is in no way just a bland listing of her playing "x" in film "y". Please familiarise yourself with the standard followed by the film, TV and theater appereance listings of actors (such as Meryl Streep on screen and stage - a list that I wrote with ) that we follow out here, and I'd be happy to follow up on more legitimate concerns. Cheers! -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They are my reasons. I don't think the lead is broad enough in its coverage or that it is detailed enough. It's not engaging or interesting. You could also illustrate the article with some images, surely (and I don't mean by adding multiple pictures of Chastain; the second one is completely pointless). With regard to Streep's, Other stuff exists comes t mind; no two lists are the same or can be the same, each one is different. Having said that, I actually found Streep's interesting to read. Unfortunately, I do find Chastain's a bit of a bland listing of "x" in "y". Another problem with the title is that it's not reflective of the content. Only one sentence in three paragraphs says about her stage work. I'm sorry that you're quite clearly rattled by my opposing, but I don't think this list represents the best of Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think this list meets 1, 2 ,3a or 5b of the criteria, either in part or fully in places. How's that? I'd actually say this list could be merged with her bio, which is a problem regarding criteria. — Calvin999  10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I'd be willing to make amendments/improvements to the article - that's the entire purpose of the FLC process. But you've got to be more specific about what needs changing; something like "not engaging or interesting" doesn't exactly help this nomination. Could I request the coordinators or some other editors to weigh in on this matter, please? -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Streep's one to me has more of an engaging and interesting flair to it. I enjoyed reading it and I found it informative. I didn't get the same feeling when I read Chastain's; it read more like a burst of short sentences. It's meant to be Chastain on stage and screen, but only one sentence out of three paragraphs actually mentioned stage work. I think also her comparatively shorter career doesn't help as there is less to draw upon and write about. But therein lies another issue for me which is bigger: I think this article could be easily merged into her bio. Lots of actors have select filmographies, and I think that the same could be applied to Chastain's. For me, that is a big problem, because I don't think it warrants its own standalone list at this point in her career because it's quite short. It's nothing to be taken personally, no nomination of any kind gets no criticism or feedback. It's not a critique on you, remember that. — Calvin999  16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The readability of the prose in the lead may be a valid point (I've not read it, so make no judgement myself), but the title is not a problem, as the format is used in several other FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment – The nominator has been indef. blocked. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 07:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Support All my comments were resolved, Good Luck with the nomination! Numerounovedant  Talk  06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Numerounovedant. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support I'm sure neither the nominator nor the delegates are going to worry much about what Calvin999 has to say. The list is clearly comprehensive and of FL standard and you wouldn't want to bloat it with excessive prose anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, good doctor. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 12:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Dan arndt (talk)
 * the key about films that had yet to be released should go at the end of the table not proceeding it - is it possible to include as a separate row in the table rather than a completely separate line.
 * the listing for Dark Shadows rather than an unaired pilot should read pilot episode with an annotation/footnote that the pilot episode wasn't aired but did have a limited release.
 * Both your comments have been addressed, though I'm not sure how to include the key as a separate row. Thanks for reading the list! :) -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will try and see if I can fix the table for you -
 * don't know why its bolded - will work on it.
 * Thanks!


 * The Huntsman: Winter's War has had its cinematic release
 * Ref 52 needs fixing
 * Done. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 10:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Stolen was originally known as Stolen Lives but was renamed before it received its theatrical release - notes should reflect this.
 * Well, several films have different names during production, but the name with which it is theatrically released is the only notable one.
 * Then maybe a footnote explaining that when it was first screened in 2009 it was called Stolen Lives but was renamed prior to its theatrically release - otherwise the notes column makes little sense.


 * The Westerner she was a co-producer not the sole producer - notes should reflect this.
 * Generally, films have more than one producer. Each one of them are still the "producer", so I think it's fine.
 * It would be preferable then for a footnote to be included to this effect, as not all films have multiple producers.


 * Texas Killing Fields was also known as The Dark Fields
 * According to IMDB, it released as The Dark Fields only in Australia. It also had different release names for other international markets. Is this notable enough to be included?
 * Maybe it is because I'm from Australia but you're right it doesn't need to be included.


 * The Colour of Time was released in the UK as Love Forever. Was it released in the US under The Color of Time or Tar?
 * It was given a theatrical release in the US as The Color of Time, but premiered in film festivals as Tar.
 * Similarly to my preceding comments about Stolen, there should be a footnote provide greater explanation about the alternative names.


 * The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby she was a co-producer not the producer, which implies she was the sole producer - notes should reflect this.
 * As above.
 * As per my comments on The Westerner.


 * Wilde Salomé, was also released as Salomé, in 2013, essentially without the documentary elements - notes should reflect this.
 * Already mentioned this. Added the year of release in the footnote.
 * Maybe reword the footnote as 'entitled Salomé, was separately released in 2013.'


 * Did she appear in the 2011 short film, Touch of Evil?
 * It wasn't really a short film, but a 40 second spoof for NYT. Is this notable?
 * You're right it isn't notable and shouldn't be included.


 * Did she appear in the episode, "Eros in the Upper Eighties", of Law and Order: Trial by Jury in 2006
 * According to this, she wasn't a part of this episode. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * and yet there are these screenshots from that episode and IMDb which appear to indicate otherwise.


 * Possibly where I was confused was in the footnotes you state 'Refers to the film's earliest release' whereas when you state the name of the film you use the date of its theatrical release as the correct name for the film, which for some of these films are different.
 * , all done. :) -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support All my comments have been addressed. Best of luck with the nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time out to review this. Much appreciated. :) -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.