Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Julianne Moore

Julianne Moore[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 3, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 13:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Moore is a British–American actress and children's author. A prolific cinema actress for more than 20 years, Moore's career has involved both art house and Hollywood films. She began on television in the 1980s, as a regular in As the World Turns, and then played supporting roles in films throughout the early 1990s. Critically acclaimed performances in Short Cuts (1993), and Safe (1995), followed by starring roles in Nine Months (1995) and The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997), established her as a leading Hollywood actress. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Moore earned Academy Award nominations for Boogie Nights (1997), The End of the Affair (1999), Far from Heaven (2002), and The Hours (2002). Other notable appearances include The Big Lebowski (1998), Magnolia (1999), Hannibal (2001), and Children of Men (2006). She has continued to work regularly in the 2010s, including acclaimed performances in The Kids Are All Right (2010) and the television film Game Change (2012), where she portrayed Sarah Palin. In addition to acting, Moore has written a successful series of children's books. (Full article...)

3 points I believe. The date is Moore's birthday, so it seems like the obvious time for her to be on the main page, and the article is widely covered. We last had an actor TFA in early October (Terry-Thomas), but so long as there aren't any others inbetween the break will have been 2 months. Hopefully the blurb is okay, please anyone feel free to tweak it or make suggestions. --Loeba (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Relevant date, recently promoted; yup, seems an obvious choice to me! -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cassianto vertabrim. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, relevant date, high quality, — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a woman who writes for children, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~" ... established a successful career"? And that is the prose, in the second sentence, that passed FAC? Oh, dear. " ... throughout the early 1990s"? "Established" used twice in the lead?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with "established a successful career" and - shock horror! - using the same word more than once when they're far away from each other? It kind of amazes me that you can be so snarky about something an individual has worked hard on. However awful you think the wording is, would it hurt you to raise the issue kindly? --Loeba (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got to agree with Sandy on this one; there's a reason why I have failed to support this nom, though in general I'm very keen to showcase biographies of women on the main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so oppose then...or alternatively, it would be great if you could help with some copy editing. But I still don't see the problem with "established a successful career"? --Loeba (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba, if you sense frustration on my part, it is not aimed at you ... it is that prose review at FAC has been seriously deteriorating and few people are critically reviewing blurbs before supporting here (and when there are prose issues in the lead, that doesn't bode well for what we might find if we explore further into the article). I suspect we aren't hearing about declining prose in FAs at WP:ERRORS because Bencherlite is doing a good job of cleaning up blurbs before posting them TFA, even though prose problems are getting through FAC routinely of late. I am better at spotting prose issues than correcting them, so I don't offer suggestions, but I do hope you will get some assistance from others who are better copyeditors. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the supporters here, all competent writers, actually thought the blurb and article were good? As for your comment about copy editing, I'm not sure I would feel comfortable criticising somebody's writing when I didn't think I was good enough to correct it myself, but anyway...I see you've been much gentler with expressing your criticism to another nomination above, so I'm glad you've taken that on board. --Loeba (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism of other articles is "gentler" to the extent that I don't see the same level of problems I see here. We may have different views on the most competent reviewers of prose at FAC (eg, User:Tony1 or User:Eric Corbett), sourcing (User:Ealdgyth), images (User:Elcobbola), MOS (User:Karanacs), etc-- most of whom are no longer active at FAC (and I see you got solid review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katharine Hepburn/archive1 of the kind most writers appreciate). I have a wee bit of review experience at FAC myself. The best way to assure a smooth ride on your day at TFA is to get concerns addressed, and strident review helps in that regard. I wish you the best, as you've surely put quite a deal of work into this, and having a rough day at TFA is not fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to a degree, although I don't don't see a problem with "established a career". But I do see a problem with two rather close together "established"s, and the redundant "both". Whether they're just in the blurb or in the article as well I haven't checked. Eric Corbett 23:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a reviewer at both the "seriously deteriorating" FAC and the PR, I have no objections if SandyGeorgia wants to tweak the prose to her satisfaction. But I suspect that won't happen. Saying "I am better at spotting prose issues than correcting them" sounds like a bit of a cop out to me and not particularly helpful. As per Eric Corbett, all that would need to happen is a slight copy edit to delete a repetetive word and a redundent one. Kudos to him and Tony for since doing that. --Cassianto ^Talk 09:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, thanks Tony and Loeba (cheer up, Cassianto, you, too, can become a better reviewer, while the likelihood that my prose will ever be as smooth, precise, and delightful to read as Tony's or Eric's-- or as the standards require-- is slim!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cheery thanks SandyGeorgia, it's just I had no idea I was a particularly bad reviewer (although I most certainly don't claim to be as good as Eric or Tony). Some things slip past even the most sharpest reviewer, which I'm confident is what happened here. This small copy edit doesn't make Moore's reviewers quite as bad as you seem to be making out. However, I suppose you are right, there is room for improvement in us all. ;) --Cassianto ^Talk 19:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]