Talk:Natalie Portman/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged. Earwig finds no issues. Re the sources: The Evening Standard is not a great source, but for the name of Portman's child it's good enough. The HuffPost article by Portman is used to cite information about herself, so that's OK. The youtube source for Free The Children is OK per WP:ABOUTSELF, and the other youtube is from AP's official channel. The 2014 post about her husband's conversion is news reporting; no problem.

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • somethingjewish.co.uk
      • Removed and replaced with The Guardian as a source. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • eduinreview.com -- the source appears to be a blog
    • broadwayworld.com (FN 186)
      • Less reliable than I originally thought looking at this and this. Now replaced with an ew.com ref. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ynetnews.com
    • fashiongonerogue.com
  • FN 68 cites a Fox News report; Fox News is not a great source in its own right, but here it's quoting the New York Post, which is worse. I would cut this.
  • FN 71 cites the New York Post; can this source be improved?
    • I've just removed it. That sentance already has another ref which is a primary source, but given it's just to say she worked on that academic paper I think it's only to just link to that paper as it lists her name. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:RS/PS Salon is regarded as a biased source but for FN 58 we're just quoting a review and attributing inline, so that's fine. However, FN 75 is a more general statement and I don't think Salon is a great source for that, and it would have to be attributed inline anyway.
    • Replaced FN 75 with the original source, and attributed inline. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 133 cites Forbes.com; per WP:RS/PS this is unreliable if the contributor is not staff. The same goes for FN 183.
    • For the first one, looking at https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/ my interpretation was they were staff at the time. For the other one, they don't appear to be staff, but that was just to reference Portman winning an award. That sentance already has another to support it, so I think it's okay. I'm happy to remove the Forbes.com ref if need be though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be better to remove it. For the first one, I'm not sure if those pages prove that Pomerantz was staff at the time, but since it's an article about Forbes' own list, I think it can be treated as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      One removed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 202 says it's to HuffPost but actually links to watchtime.com.
  • FN 226 is to HuffPost and explicitly says it's relying on Us Weekly and rumour ("Although the details are scant, the wedding is said to have been"). I'd cut this.
    • I've replaced it with the Us Weekly source itself, whilst not according to WP:RSP, combined with the People source I think is sufficient to support the phrase "wed in a Jewish ceremony held in Big Sur, California, on August 4, 2012." -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, but since the People source supports all of that phrase I think you might as well cut the Us Weekly source. But struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 229 is to Us Weekly which is not a great source. It looks like it's actually citing an interview she did which is available on YouTube; can we cite that instead?
    • Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can we get an offset into the video to help with verification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I admit I didn't watch that particular clip before, now I have I can see it only supports living in France (it's not the whole interview) at the very beginning, so I've re-arranged that sentance a bit and added a bit of more recent news. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 234 is cited to the Yahoo Contributor Network, which I'm not familiar with. Do we know if this is subject to editorial oversight, or is it contributor posted?
    • Looks like the first 3 things people post had some kind of review ([1]), but not sure I'd call that editorial oversight. It was shut down in 2014. I'm going to interpret it as being contributor posted. Looking into it that source was a bit confused anyway, so I've replaced it and updated the wording of the sentance in the article. There's other news articles on the topic, but I thought one was enough.

I'll pause the review there so we can address these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie thank you for this. I've made a start, but it'll take me a couple of days to go through them. I'll ping you again when I'm ready to progress. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; no hurry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie I think I've responded to all your points, over to you again. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly struck above, with a couple of comments. I'll read through and add more comments, today or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie Thank you. I've responded to the above comments in the meantime. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "receiving multiple accolades such as an Academy Award, a British Academy Film Award, and a Screen Actors Guild Award": suggest "including" rather than "such as" -- these aren't random examples, they're the most prominent accolades.
  • The lead doesn't make it clear that she did reduce her acting load while at Harvard; I think that would be worth mentioning.
  • "Portman's career progressed with her starring roles": "progressed" is a bit editorial. Maybe just "After graduating from Harvard, she" and then move Closer down to this paragraph since that postdates her time in college too; then list V for Vendetta and the rest.
    • Changed to "advanced" Eiga-Kevin2, and I moved the sentance about Closer -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'believed that she "isn't enough of an actress': suggest 'believed that she wasn't "enough of an actress' to avoid the jarring shift in tense.
  • "Filming in arduous locations in Algeria proved challenging for Portman, who struggled with the process of making a film involving special effects." Nothing seems to connect the two halves of this sentence. And why would the special effects make a difference to her acting?
  • "after finding a connection with her part of a spirited young girl": suggest "after finding a connection with her part: a spirited young girl"
  • "Her role in it is considered a prime example of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character type by Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club." Suggest "Her role in it was described as a prime example..."; and I think we should explain the MPDG inline, even if only a couple of words -- perhaps something like "Her role in it was described by Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club. as a prime example of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character type -- a stereotypical female role designed to spiritually help a male protagonist"? You'd need a cite for that definition too, unless the Rabin cite covers it.
    • Done. The Rabin cite includes "The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures", which I think covers it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owing to a scene in which her character is tortured, her head was shaved on camera": suggest "In a scene in which her character is tortured, her head was shaved on camera".
  • "Her role was that of a war widow, for which she interacted with military wives": does this mean she spoke to military wives to prepare for the role? It's not clear if so.
  • "Portman found it challenging to shoot certain scenes without a bound script": i.e. a loose leaf script would have been fine?
    • My understanding was they didn't have a script and had only had discussions about the scene before they had to film it. I've changed "bound" (in as "fixed") to "written", which I hope is better. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and her as a young couple": suggest "a romantic comedy in which she starred with Ashton Kutcher as a young couple"
  • "She also worked with a dialect coach to adapt Kennedy's unique speaking style." I don't think "adapt" can be the word wanted; perhaps "adopt"?
    • I think both work (as in "adapted to for use by her"), but have changed to "adopt". -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on activism seems a little long. I don't think I would hold up GA for this, but looking for snippets you could cut: naming the baby gorilla; mention of World Patrol Kids; the interview with Zakaria or the one with Stephanopoulos (or even both); maybe compress the sentences on which presidential candidates she supported. Possibly also the bit about Polanski, depending on how much coverage it's received.
    • I agree it's a little bit long. I've trimmed it slightly at least. Probably could be trimmed a bit more in the future. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • FN 139 cites "A. O. Scott of The New York Times found it to be a "conscientious adaptation of a difficult book" and was appreciative of Portman's potential as a filmmaker." Verified.
  • FN 121 cites "She next agreed to the stoner film Your Highness for the opportunity of playing an athletic and foul-mouthed character, which she believed was rare for actresses." I don't see support for "stoner film".
  • FN 107 cites "After producing and co-starring alongside Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the black comedy Hesher (2010)": verified.
  • FN 78 cites "Controversy arose when she filmed a kissing scene at the Western Wall, where gender segregation is enforced, and she later issued an apology": verified.
  • FN 226 cites "In 2017 she bought a Montecito mansion, which she sold in 2021 for $8 million." Verified.
  • FN 197 cites "It was announced in May 2012 that Portman would be working with watch designer Richard Mille to develop a limited-edition timepiece with proceeds supporting WE Charity." Verified.

That's everything. Kj cheetham, I see that another editor has made some of these edits already; that's fine with me of course but you may want to take a look too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie Thank you again. I'll get through them in the coming days. In the meantime, I wanted to ask that if this passes, would it be possible for Krimuk2.0 to share the credit, as they are a significant contributor to the article over the longer term? I've only really had a very small part to play in recent months. See also discussion at User talk:Kj cheetham#Your GA nomination of Natalie Portman. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any way to share credit for a GA, though if there's something I can do as reviewer to make it happen I'd be happy to do it. If you would prefer Krimuk 2.0 to get the credit, the only way I know to do that is to do a procedural fail, once all the issues are dealt with and I'm ready to promote; then they can do a nomination which I will immediately promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessary. I simply needed my contributions to be acknowledged. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie Thank you for considering it, I think we're good to go as-is. I've now responded to your points above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to one point above; other than that everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalie_Portman/GA1&oldid=1113126744"