Talk:Kate Winslet

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kate Winslet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention Wildhartlivie, much of this series of edits was good. If you get a chance reconsider some of the reversions. I will be offline for WP for much of the day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page to his objections. That series of edits added content unsupported by the references present, made factual errors and left some of it confusing to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary thougths

WP:LEAD

The Lead has two problematic sentences and an ungrammatical phrase:

• "She achieved recognition in a supporting role in Ang Lee's adaption of Sense and Sensibility (1995) and her role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in Titanic (1997)." is ambiguous/ungrammatical. It is unclear what you mean. Are both of these supporting roles? What I think you mean to do is show that soon after debuting in a 1994 film she began receiving critical recognition. This paragraph could be expanded to something like the following. "She achieved recognition for her supporting role in Ang Lee's adaption of Sense and Sensibility (1995) in the form of a SAG award as well as both GG and Oscar nominations. Then, she received numerous nominations for her role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in Titanic (1997) including SAG, GG and Oscar."
  • I reworded the sentence in order to avoid too many Titanic mentions, but I also added "leading" in front of "role as Rose...". That makes a distinction and clarifies the point of concern, and I think it also helps to show that this was the approximate time period in which she progressed from a highly regarded supporting actress to a highly regarded leading actress. Rossrs (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• ", as well as being nominated for an Emmy." is ungrammatical. The comma suggests that the second phrase is independent, but it is not because it has no subject. If you want to add this thought it should either be without the comma using a verb in the same tense and form as its parallel (has won should be paralleled by has been) or with the comma as an independent phrase such as ", and she has been nominated for an Emmy."
• "She has been hailed as "the best English-speaking film actress of her generation" by New York magazine." is a well-cited POV statement. The first sentence in the paragraph is very clear. However, her performing generation overlaps with currently active actresses such as Meryl Streep, who is still at it. Sure they probably mean actress born in the seventies or the X generation or Y generation or whatever that generation is, but I don't know. So why don't you say the best actress of the XXXName generation if you can or clarify born in the seventies. I am not sure what her generation is so this claim is very ambiguous. I think the statement might be fine for the body of an article, but the lead should cut to the chase on issues and not raise ambiguities. If you can't define her generation move this quote to the main body and say something more general here.
• I also think it might be fair to tell the reader which six movies she has been critically acclaimed for in the LEAD. Heck this is probably her most distinguishing claim. We have a whole bunch of movies listed and don't really know which ones are the good ones.
• I really wish this lead would tell me Her most recent role at the box office was in X and she is currently filming Y. However, Y seems to be a bit of a mystery.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Further reflection on the LEAD makes me reel a revamp would be in order. How about a single paragraph that sums up what you would most like them to know about Winslet. I.e., 1 she is an actress (and singer), 2. she is highly regarded as the best of her generation with more Oscar noms than anyone her age has ever had, 3. say which movies she has had Oscar lead and Oscar support noms in, 4. She has won a variety of awards. Then para 2 & maybe 3 do a brief chronology. The, add a par on non acting stuff, especially her relationships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on this, although I don't believe her personal life warrants lead mention. She isn't notable for her personal life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is not that her personal life is notable or newsworthy. Read WP:LEAD, which says that the LEAD should summarize an article. A lead for a substantive article can be up to four paragraphs and the non-acting part of this article is about 1/4 of its contents. We have to summarize that part in the LEAD too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I spent some time working on the LEAD. You can work from there, but I have sort of sketched my vision. I will look at what you have done below more closely tomorrow or Thursday. You were using the conversion template incorrectly. You have to put the correct year and dollar amount in for it to have meaning. I did not look at anything else below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Early Life

• For such a successful and notable person, I wish this section could be a bit more substantive and longer. I just don't know where to tell you to find more content because she is out of my expertise.

That fairly follows what I could find about her early life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Winslet was born in Reading, Berkshire, the daughter of " seems ungrammatical. I think it would be cleaner as follows "Born in Reading, Berkshire, Winslet is the daughter of" Fixed.
• "with Winslet commenting" might be better as "which caused Winslet to comment" Fixed.
• "Winslet, raised in an Anglican household, began" seems like it would be better if the verb and noun were not split. Either use raised as a verb or move that phrase before Winslet. I.e., either "Winslet was raised in an Anglican household and began" or "Raised in an Anglican household, Winslet began". Fixed.
• I believe the phrase ", directed by filmmaker Tim Pope," needs to be moved to follow the noun it is modifying and instead of the object of the preposition. How about "Sugar Puffs cereal television advertisement directed by filmmaker Tim Pope at the age of 12". Then, say Pope said. . .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

1991-97

• link sitcom, casting call, film set, Gothic novels Fixed.
• "Auditioning for the part of Juliet Hulme, a teenager who assists in the murder of the mother of her best friend, Pauline Parker, played by Melanie Lynskey, she won the role over 175 other girls." is confusing because of the nested parenthetical phrases that go three levels deep. Please re-write this sentence. Fixed.
• "intending to get the small but pivotal role of Lucy Steele." is remote from whatever it is modifying. Fixed.
• Add a conversion for US$135 million and US$1.8 billion to current dollars (I use this feature in Fountain of Time).
  • Look at how I fixed this template and try and add the format where you talk about any dollar amount that is more than 10 years old.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a link for this use of the term exhaustion? Fixed the next sentence expanded upon it.
  • I am not sure I understand how this was fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording. She described being scared and that Cameron was a perfectionist and concern over bad early press. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• most of all high-profile awards is ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by how to use this. Is it correct? Also, as far as I can tell, the $1.8 billion figure is the current figure from here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1998-2003

• Is "hippie romance" a term that should be linked. I have never heard of it. If not at least hippie should probably be linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I linked hippie. It really isn't a phrase with an article, it's a romance with hippies, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence: "The film was inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade, the actress served as somewhat of a “patron saint” of the movie for being the first big name to back it, accepting the role of a chamber maid in the asylum and the carrier of the The Marquis' manuscripts to the underground publishers." is a bit long and has many terms that are not common usage. How about a period after Sade. Then, "Winslet served. . ." FIXED'
• Should patron saint be linked to understand its meaning. Although the destination article is in need of development, high profile linkages will help encourage such development. FIXED
• chamber maid, asylum, and the carrier are also not common words. I tend to WP:OVERLINK, but consider linking these terms. FIXED - I changed "carrier" to "courier".
• decide whether art house is one word or two in this section and throughout if it is used later. Fixed --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed - both are in the dictionary, but arthouse links to directly to art film.

2004–2006

• "A departure from her previous roles," is not modifying a role that was a departure, but rather modifying Winslet incorrectly. 'Fixed
• Similarly, "A critical and financial success," is modifying Winslet, I believe incorrectly.
• "Another film of 2004 was Finding Neverland." is a bad lead for a paragraph, which should start a new thought. Find a new way to start the paragraph that is more of a clean slate or at least a less overt reference to prior text. Fixed
• dancing abilities in Holy Smoke! s/b dancing abilities exhibited (or maybe shown or demonstrated) in Holy Smoke! Fixed, used "displayed"
• "After declining an invitation to appear in Woody Allen's film Match Point (2005)," needs to be immediately followed by a subject that declined an invitation. In other words, this time it should be followed by Winslet. I believe it is bad form to slip in the (subordinate or parenthetical or some such) phrase "stating that she wanted to be able to spend more time with her children," Fixed
• What is a Britannia Award? The Britannia Award is given by BAFTA/LA, which is an organization that functions to bring together BAFTA members and the LA film community. It's basically sponsered by BAFTA.
  • Many international readers like myself will need a link or an explanation in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I can't find Britannia Award. Is it fixed? Rossrs (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference for that statement goes directly to the website belonging to BAFTA/LA that describes what it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • I would change"BAFTA/LA Britannia Award[54]" to "Britannia Award, BAFTA/LA's highest accolade,[54]"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "For her work in the film, she was honored with a Britannia Award from BAFTA/LA, a Los Angeles-based offshoot of the BAFTA Awards."? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no non-insider would know what it is how about "BAFTA/LA, a Los Angeles-based offshoot of the BAFTA Awards, recognized her work in film with a Britannia Award, which is its highest accolade."

I am not sure if I am misunderstanding this award. Is it like the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award or the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "For her work in the film, she was honored with a Britannia Award for British Artist of the Year from BAFTA/LA, a Los Angeles-based offshoot of the BAFTA Awards." It isn't something of that sort of calibre, for Winslet, it was more like "Best Actress", without a competition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• In the CG-animated Flushed Away comma Fixed --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

2007–present

• "Resulting in both "a blessing and an added pressure" on-set, it" seems like it might be better as "Resulting in both "a blessing and an added pressure" on-set, the reunion" Fixed
• "Her seventh nomination, Winslet" seems ungrammatical to me because I think "Her seventh nomination," should be followed by a nomination and not Winslet. Fixed
• Was the reader one of those films with temporal discontinuity? I think there is probably a film term for this if I am recalling correctly. I don't honestly know. I haven't seen it yet.
• Do we want to say rave reviews three times?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Changed to "favorable reviews"

If it is okay,I'll do these tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Check WP:FILM to see if a filmography is suppose to appear in the middle of text. It seems oddly placed to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM doesn't address filmographies and I can say with much confidence that WP:ACTOR doesn't specify where it should go. Since it covers awards in specific, it seemed okay to be there to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at some WP:FA actresses Diane Keaton, Kirsten Dunst, Sharon Tate, and Bette Davis, it seems the filmography is always at the end.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie has awards after the filmography, although it doesn't look out of place because they're in table form. It could be done either way, I guess. The awards result from the films so in a narrative sense, placing the awards after the filmography seems like an effective approach, IMO, but it does look "untidy" to have a big table in the middle of all that text. Alternatively the section could be changed to "Filmography and awards" with the awards in subheaders. This would create a ToC that places "Filmography and awards" as the last section of the article but retain the basic structure as it currently appears. I don't know what would be best. We don't have any project guideline to help us, and common practice allows for either style, however I think you've observed correctly that filmographies usually appear at the end. Not sure if it's something that could be "case by case". What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Music

• The notability of What if is stated more clearly in the acting career section. I don't know that you need to be redundant, but the information about its success should be kept together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • My view is that we don't need a "music" section. The first paragraph contains a couple of non-notable instances of Winslet singing that could be mentioned alongside the discussion of each project. The "What If" single is notable and could could easily sit in the discussion of the film project. Music is an anomaly for Winslet and something that she's fallen into a couple of times because the role required it. There seems to be a tendency to try to segregate the careers of some artists, and I think it makes more sense if it's done chronologically. Winslet's forays into music make more sense if given in the context of her films. Meryl Streep#Music is another example. A successful soundtrack album for which she contributed vocals, and a top 10 single in Portugal, and she gets a music section. It makes it look like music is a notable element of Winslet's/Streep's careers, and it's simply not. Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Although I could be convinced otherwise, I like to see stuff other than her acting career. A music section is a fine addition. However, it is imperative not to be redundant. I would argue to extract the music content to the separate section, but could see the opposite decision leading to a good flowing article as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I like to see other stuff too, but only if it's independently notable. In Winslet's case, each instance of her singing has been in character for one of her films. The fact that one song achieved enough popularity to be released as a single, and was successful, is certainly relevant, but it's still an offshoot of her film role and I think that's the more appropriate area for it to be discussed. I think it's an entirely different to the situation of performers who have pursued singing and acting careers such as David Bowie, Beyonce or Juliette Lewis. I don't think Winslet is any more a "singer" than someone like Grace Kelly who also had one hit single ("True Love", a duet with Bing Crosby from High Society) or even Bette Davis who had a hit single with a novelty song during the 1940s. I also think it's creates a possible issue of WP:UNDUE. A distinct section could imply that the "music" aspect of the career is significant when it's really not. As for redundancy, well yes, that's another point. It's in "1998-2003" and in a "music" section, which only adds to the problem of undue emphasis. Rossrs (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
        • O.K. You have convinced me. Fold all the music content into the main text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will leave that for Ross. I wouldn't have argued for integration. It was modelled after another either GA or FA article, although I can't recall what one it was. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I stand by everything I said, you both seem to favour leaving it as is. Does this require further discussion? Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were concurring to move the Music section into the acting career?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ross was discussing it, I'm in favor of leaving it where it is. Some of her work hit the music charts and were significant. I fashioned this section from another article about an actress who ended up having charted music. Rossrs said he wasn't that invested in integrating it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. While you were making this comment, I was busy integrating. I feel that the section is not needed, and I stated my case. I hesitated to go any further because I felt that Wildhartlivie was not happy with that outcome, but rather was "accepting" it. Perhaps you could both look at how I've integrated it, and if either of you feels it's not helpful, change it back to how it was and I'll leave it. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, whatever. It is the same wording and emphasis. That's fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

• Does she have custody of Mia Honey?
  • Seems they have shared custody. At least according to the tabloids. Still looking for the elusive WP:RS. Rossrs (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Keep me posted on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • It may need to remain unsaid. Perhaps they are among those rare celebrities that keep their private lives private, although it surprises me that even a side mention in a reliable source, is proving so difficult to find. Rossrs (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
        • It is certainly not something to hold up a GA over. If you find it that would be great though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• What are her "views that I have always expressed about body issues, including diet and exercise"?
  • That women should be encouraged to accept and take pride in their appearance. Have expanded. Rossrs (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• "They also own a manor house in the tiny village of Church Westcote in Gloucestershire, England, for which they spent £3 million on Church Westcote Manor, a rambling Grade II-listed house with five bedrooms, set in 22 acres." is a malformed and seemingly redundant sentence.
  • Reworked the whole paragraph - the next sentence was a bit of a problem too. Rossrs (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Link this symbol £ to something so that the reader knows what it means.
  • Done. Rossrs (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Should "As a result of both being involved in aircraft incidents, and fearing leaving their children parentless, Winslet and Mendes never fly together on the same aircraft." be at the end of the paragraph after the examples have been presented.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've reworded it, but I think it was ok. I don't think this is better or worse now. Just different. :-) Rossrs (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

• "Winslet won an Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance in The Reader, as well as two Golden Globe Awards, one in the category of Best Actress (Drama) for her performance in Revolutionary Road, the other in the Best Supporting Actress category for The Reader." should be split into two sentences.
  • Done. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "She won two Golden Globe Awards in the same year" probably should be followed by a colon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Rossrs (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Winslet has twice received Academy Award nominations for playing the younger versions of characters in which another actress was nominated for the older version of the character, the only two instances of different actors playing the same character in the same film both being nominated for an Oscar." should be split into two sentences.
  • Difficult, but done. Done well? Not sure. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • How about something like Winslet has twice portrayed a character that has had multiple actors portray different stages of the characters life and had both her portrayal as well as that of her counterpart be nominated for an academy award in the same year. In both instances, Winslet portayed the younger version while fellow nominees Gloria Stuart, as Rose in Titanic[91] and Judi Dench, as Iris Murdoch, in Iris were also nominated. You might want to tweak it a bit though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • To tell you the truth, I think that is awkward. What I wrote is awkward too, but I spent literally half an hour staring at the screen and writing about ten different variations of just those two sentences. If you want to change it, maybe you should do so, and then it can be tweaked, but I can't get my mind around how to word that so it covers all the relevant information, but is still fairly easy to read and to understand. Perhaps I've looked at it too long and it needs another set of eyes. Rossrs (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• There was a point when I added that she was the youngest to have two nominations with a citation. This seems to have been removed. Please read it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • • The source said youngest actress, Sal Mineo was the youngest overall. I changed this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Do we know anything about her relative standing upon earning her fourth nomination?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Still curious about this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll write Rossrs to ask about this. I've searched for it and can't find it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To satisfy curiosity, I've found 2 people who earned a 4th nom at a younger age than Winslet. There could be more, and this is WP:OR based solely on me looking at a list of multiple nominees. 1. Jennifer Jones age 27. 2. Elizabeth Taylor, age 28. 3. Kate, age 29. Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • What is the record for earning a seventh?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Bette Davis age 37, 7th nomination for Mr. Skeffington (1945) Rossrs (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
        • O.K. so I got an email saying she was the youngest actress to 2, but Sal Mineo (an actor) was younger. This will be lost on the reader. Please inlcude in the text and clarify.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Done and referenced

Comments about Lead:

• I think this sentence (from the lead) is awkward. "Her role in Titanic was the lead female role in the highest grossing film of all time." I also see Titanic mentioned three times in the lead in three different paragraphs. I think it should be condensed, so have removed this sentence and have reworded a later sentence to read, "She achieved recognition for subsequent work in a supporting role in Ang Lee's adaption of Sense and Sensibility (1995) and her leading role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in James Cameron's Titanic (1997), the highest grossing film of all time.". This also allows for the progression from the supporting role to the leading role.
  • I like it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also from the lead. "She is regarded as one of the best actresses of her generation,[1] in large part due to having become the youngest two-time, youngest five-time and youngest six-time Academy Award nominated actress for supporting actress roles in Sense and Sensibility, and Iris as well as for lead actress in Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and The Reader." I think this sentence is torturous and pedantic. The article gives all the relevant detail, but for the lead this is just too much. The main point is that she's highly regarded, and her multiple award nominations are evidence of this, but six nominations and a win would be pretty impressive at any age. It's more than Jessica Tandy achieved, and we all think she's great, and the specifics are covered later in the article. ;-) It's also Academy Award focussed (and her Academy Award nomination tally is repeated later in the lead and this cannot stand per WP:UNDUE) and I know it's the "big" award, but a British actress would be fairly chuffed with a BAFTA and they aren't handed out lightly either. They may not have the same currency on a global scale, but they are highly credible and credibility seems to be the point being made. I won't make the change, because I'm less confident about this than I was about the point above. I would suggest ""She is regarded as one of the best actresses of her generation,[1] and has been acknowledged with several award nominations for her supporting roles in Sense and Sensibility, and Iris and for her leading roles in Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and The Reader." Secondary issue is that film titles are repeated in paragraphs 1 and 2, and paragraphs 1 and 3.
  • This is not how I would do it in the abstract. However, judging that the Bette Davis FA does not mention that she was the first to achieve a total of ten in the LEAD, you may be right. In general, I think a lead should summarize the article to serve the reader who only wants to read a summary. In a summary, I would like to know the important records someone has set. However, it seems the convention is not what I believe. I think this differs from many fields. I do a lot of sports article where you summarize all the important records and championships in the LEAD. See FAs such as Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc. It seems odd to me to remove the most important records in acting, but I guess that is convention. I won't fight you on such a change. It is odd to me though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • To tell you the truth, I'm not sure exactly what I'm suggesting. I think the convention is to steer away from "Kate Winslet is an Academy Award winning actress" in the opening sentence, but it's generally accepted and encouraged that notable awards and achievements are given their due in the lead. I'm not intending to obscure any of the important details, and I'm keeping WP:LEAD uppermost in my mind. I've been looking at a few leads. I like Bette Davis, but I wrote that one so I'm biased. Seriously, it ain't perfect. Perhaps it should include that she was the first 10-time Oscar nominee. It's an extraordinary achievement. I've also been looking at some FAs such as Angelina Jolie and Reese Witherspoon. Neither have excellent leads - one is good and one is adequate in my opinion. I had not looked at Kirsten Dunst, but I will. As you mentioned with the sportspeople, the awards are significant and equally so for Winslet. I'm just trying to think of a way to condense the content so that everything is given the appropriate degree of weight, but that individual film titles are not repeated unnecessarily. Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead and a proposal can be found here. Also included are a few other lead sections that I used as guidance.

• That proposed LEAD is excellent except that "Recognised for choosing diverse roles" borders on decorative. All great actresses choose a variety of roles. It need not be stated. If we state she has six noms, it goes without saying she did not do a bunch of sequels. No one would respect that in the way she is respected. If you can show me an actress who has six noms for which this is not true, I will recant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right. I've trimmed that sentence. It was a bit of froth and bubble and not needed. Rossrs (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also, do we need to include the year with every mention of the film. I think that is similar to linking it redundantly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we do. First off, I was thinking the year should go with the first mention only, of each film, but after I played around the with the lead, The Reader is the only film that is mentioned twice. Its second mention is as part of a list of films, all being mentioned for the first time. I think it would look odd to exclude the year from it. It looks a little clunky but I can't think of another way of doing it. Rossrs (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• P.S. I think you should add the 10 noms to Davis if it has largely been your work since others will accede to your thoughts in all likelihood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree it's worth mentioning, so I've reworded the sentence to incorporate that she was the first with 10 noms. Rossrs (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad you mentioned Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky. When I read them, it suddenly hit me the difference between sportspeople and film makers. The athletes make their mark by winning events, by breaking recordings, by amassing statistics. An actor need not do that. They become a part of culture by doing something that elicits an emotional reaction, with or without recognition or (obviously they need recognition) acclaim. An athlete can't hide in the shadows, but an actor can. Somebody like Clint Eastwood is an icon because he touches people and they respond. He's won a lot of awards too, but he'd still be a huge figure even without awards. So.. that helped. To explain my thought processes:

1. Academy Awards. It's impressive that she was the youngest to get two nominations, but even more impressive that she was the youngest to get six. So I left it at six, and the article gives the further info. It belongs in the first paragraph as it's such a huge achievement. It segues nicely into the other notable awards, so I left them in the first paragraph contrary to my earlier suggestion that they should be moved. In the first paragraph, with the exception of one film, it's about the overall acclaim, rather than specific Oscar nominated performances. I thought it was WP:UNDUE weight to list the Oscar films separately to films such as Revolutionary Road which prompted the "best actress" comment from New York Times and which may have been Oscar nominated if not The Reader. I thought it was more appropriate to note that multiple performances have attracted multiple award nominations, so I went through the filmography and listed all that had more than about 5 different nominations. This added about 3 titles to the list which were highly acclaimed but not Oscar nominated. I think this is more balanced.
2. Diversity. A common thread throughout the article is that Winslet makes unusual choices, and doesn't do blockbuster films just because she can. She's been well received in virtually every shift of genre she has made, so I included this in the first paragraph as part of the overall perception of her. She's never been stereotyped because she's never done the predictable thing.
3. Specifics and consistency. Date for all films/projects. Removed director and character names as they are in the article for anyone that wants them, and they distract from Winslet. For consistency, and to keep the spotlight squarely on Kate, I've used only the film titles. Included The Holiday and Flushed Away as commercial successes, lest we think she's only about the art. Also expanded on her hit single. It reached number one in about 5 countries, so I think it's only right to name it and the project that spawned it.
4. Context. I think the New York Times quote is a good one, but I think it needs context even as part of a summary, so I linked it to Revolutionary Road, which was the film that drew that particular comment. Otherwise it's not so clear. The comment could have been made any time for any reason.

I feel fairly happy with this, and I look forward to your thoughts. Rossrs (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll change to my proposed version of the lead, on the understanding that it's not a done deal and that it may require further work. Rossrs (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• "She has won awards from the Screen Actors Guild, British Academy of Film and Television Arts, and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and she has been nominated for an Emmy." This should be moved to the end of the film discussion especially if the change I suggest above is implemented.
  • Go for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• "She has been hailed as "the best English-speaking film actress of her generation" by New York magazine" and "She is regarded as one of the best actresses of her generation" are too similar to both be included in the list. Which one should we keep? Again, this impacts on my suggestion above. Rossrs (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I added the latter and hid the former when I reworked the LEAD. Now both appear. I would go with the more general.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• i just noticed that some film titles are followed by the year of release and some not. It looks odd and I don't know the correct way of doing this. I'd be less concerned if the date was included on the first mention of the film, but that's not the case. Also, " Todd Field's 2006 drama Little Children..." - why not "Todd Field's drama Little Children (2006)", in line with the style of date used for the other films. Not sure what is correct here. Rossrs (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The Kirsten Dunst FA has years on some and not others in the LEAD. I do not know what convention is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that there is a convention on this, but I was thinking that consistency is usually good practice, especially when in doubt. Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Y b (MoS): Y

   The location of the filmography should be monitored for stylistic preference conformity with whatever evolves as the norm for actors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

   Also, I have encouraged a relatively full form WP:LEAD compared to other actors. If this becomes abnormal or is undesirable in pursuit of higher quality ratings feel free to redesign.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Y b (citations to reliable sources): Y c (OR): Y

   Please check the problematic link at the link checker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

   Even though the link checker shows the link as dead, opening the url itself brings up the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Y b (focused): Y

   I just wonder if she has custody of her first child.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Y

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: Y

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Y b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Y

   Four images are all suitable, properly-licensed, properly-tagged with warnings such as personality rights, and properly-WP:CAPTIONed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Y

I apologize for my slow progress on guiding this article. I also apologize that I do not know the stylistic issues at WP:FILM to really be sure I am sending this article in the proper direction. I appreciate the efforts of all concerned in trying to improve this article. This article is now looking quite good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

An inappropriate verb used here:

From the Random House Dictionary, 2010 edition:
Accrue: 1. to happen or result as a natural growth, addition, etc. 2. to be added as a matter of periodic gain or advantage, as interest on money. 3. Law: to become a present and enforceable right or demand.

The winning or giving out of awards is not a processess of natural growth, and neither is it a process of periodic gain, such as the earning of interest in saved money.

To the contrary, the winning of an award is something that happens as an unpredictable, unforseeable event. For those who know about such things, like I do from graduate-level courses in the field. The winning of awards is best considered as a Poisson random process.

To let me be a little redundant, award-winning is not a process of natural growth, but rather, the winning of an award is an extraordinary event, and not a mundane process of natural growth.

Thus, we have to think of a verb that has an entirely-different connotation than "accrue" does. I will think of one and make the change. 98.81.26.101 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Music

She sang a whimsical duet with "Weird Al" Yankovic on the Sandra Boynton release Dog Train entitled "I Need A Nap".

Explain, please, why this is not a useful addition. 71.127.13.57 (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Many reasons. Whose descriptor is "a whimsical duet"? That is POV commentary. WHy is it notable when the only source offered could be described as promotional in nature (Sandra Boynton's own website). And the song, and the album from which it comes, do not warrant articles here at all. Wildhartlivie (talk)

I'll grant "whimsical"", but the rest is factual reporting. 71.127.13.57 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: 7 edits

Wildhartlivie has reverted the 7 edits I made this morning. I think they were good edits, little touches that I could make to perfect a 99% perfect article. The reasons given don't seem to justify my edits being reverted. I realize the article is under GA review, and I hope the article passes, but even more importantly I hope the article becomes as good as it can be. For instance, in the lede, two directors are mentioned, Ang Lee and Peter Jackson, yet, even though Titanic is mentioned, its director, James Cameron is not. It seems odd to leave out mention of the director of the subject's biggest hit. Other little changes I made were to promote clarity and flow, and almost all, if not all, were reverted. I won't engage in an edit war, even though I think my edits were an improvement, the combing of one loose strand of hair in an otherwise magnificent coiffure, but I do think that strand of hair needs to be combed back. Thus, I want this thread to serve as a call to reconsider the edits of mine which were reverted. Good day!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article is undergoing a good article nomination and if you had looked at that, you'd see that a intro rewrite is one of the recommendations. As for your edits, my concern was that you changed content being reviewed and which I felt could jeopardize the review. The edits were not massively reverted, there was rationale for each change. The edit summaries explained the problems that led to changing the wording back. Let's examine that. This edit was because you added content that was not covered in any source in the article and was not supported in any way, there is no source that her film role choices are considered "unpredictable". In fact, while working on this article, I did not see that anyone has said that. This edit was because you added that Lee said he "admired her passionate performance in Heavenly Creatures, he was initially worried about the level of "craziness" Winslet had exhibited", except the source that was given for the rest of the sentence does not say anything about admiring her performance nor was there mention of "craziness" in her performance. Additionally, you added a statement that Heavenly Creatures received "dozens of awards", which is patently not true. Between nominations and awards, the film received 20, not "dozens". Amidst this edit, you displaced a source and reworked sentences that were not in need of such and contained grammatical errors. [1] see review comment about the phrase "as well as". This edit left a one sentence paragraph. I was confused by the wording in this edit and it added a phrase about technicalities without a clear explanation of that. My concerns were for the review currently underway and I did not feel that the edits you made provided the "perfect clarity" your edit summaries stated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to leave this article alone, as I was initially offended by Wildhartlivie's tone in editing and discussion (esp. when that editor assumed that I had not looked at the GA assesment page), but upon reflection, I realize that Wildhartlivie simply brought up some points of concern, and that I am free to respond to them. In this way, out of synthesis of diverging perspectives, I am hopeful that the article will improve. I was mistaken to think that because the article is up for GA status that serious dialogue should therefore cease until the article passes. Rather, I think that there is no more appropriate time to discuss ways in which to improve the article. After all, that's what the assessment is about. With that said, I have reinstated the edits which Wildhartlivie reverted without explanation.

Regarding my insertion that a film of Winslet's had won "dozens" of awards, I was not referring to Heavenly Creatures, but to Sense and Sensibility.

As for the paraphrase of Ang Lee's perspective on Winslet's acting, I have reread the sourced quote, and I found that in fact it does exhibit Lee's admiration of her passionate performance in Heavenly Creatures, and it does mention her "craziness". Here is the sourced quote, verbatim:

"I wanted the same passion, but I tried to reduce that craziness and try to bring grace," Mr. Lee said.[2]

Regarding Wildhartlivie's claim that I "displaced a source", I checked and rechecked the edit, and found no evidence of such. I can only hope that Wildhartlivie or another editor will help me understand that concern.

Since my edit regarding the Academy milestone confused Wildhartlivie, I offer this explanation: Before my edit, the text had it that Winslet set a milestone by playing the role of an Oscar nominee. My edit corrected that info to present the fact that Winslet played has not played the role of an Oscar nominee, but that she has played the role of a character, whose older years in the same film were portrayed by another nominee. My edits sought to clarify a complex situation involving three actresses, two characters with split roles, and four Oscar nominations. For this reason, I think Wildhartlivie's confusion might have arisen as a result of the particular situation rather than my edit.

Wildhartlivie had let pass a few of my grammatical edits, and I let some of that editor's edits pass as well, such as the revertion of my rearranging of the "Music" section.

I hope my edits meet consensus.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph: to rely on awards received or work in film

The following two comments are moved from my personal talk page (Abie the Fish Peddler (talk)):

I have reverted your last four edits. The WP:POV tone of the lead was shocking. Read WP:LEAD. The POV tone on the tormented nature of her roles may be suitable for the main body if well-cited. The LEAD should give a broad overview. My goal is to have a first paragraph, which details the essentials of her career, summarizing the most important general details. Then the subsequent paragraphs detail her acting chronology and the most important non-acting elements of her life. Look at your first paragraph and the current one. Ask yourself what best summarizes her career for someone who only is going to read the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to shock you, I only meant to do what you suggest. The reason my version of the second sentence differs with yours, I think, has to do with the fact that your version says she is notable for her AMPAS awards, while my version says she's notable because of her work. In fact, I have read the articles you suggested, and as an added fact, I referenced them just before my edits. To verify this, simply read above the first line of the article where it says "Please don't mention Academy Award winning in the first sentence." Yes, you didn't add that in the first sentence, but if you look at MOS:FILM, you'll see it advised not to even mention awards won in the first paragraph. The reason the article cites is POV. So, my friend, I think you are the one making the POV edit, additionally since my edits were well referenced. I shall add the mention of "acutely portraying bright but tormented women" into the body of the article as you suggest, but I insist that it belongs in the lede, at least until we find something that improves on both of our versions. Just as important, you're edit summary saying that you don't have time to edit with a scalpel is the thing that shock me. If you don't have time to edit well, I strongly feel that you should take a break and come back later. WP won't burn down if you don't step in, and WP won't lose credibility if someone reads about Kate Winslet from a perspective which you personally hadn't thought of before. With all respect, I will revert your reversion, additionally because your edit repeats the mention of several of her films. Hope to hear your further thoughts, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just now referred to several Featured Articles of actors in order to improve the lede paragraph, among them: Bette Davis, Kirsten Dunst, Diane Keaton, and Maggie Gyllenhaal. This is why I now understand User:Tony the Tiger's point about the description of Winslet's characters not belonging in the lede. I am looking through the body of the article to see if I can find a place where it fits. Let me know if you find it, or if you don't think it belongs in the article at all.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were the reviewer, Tony the Tiger. I hope I was respectful in my editing and dialogue. I'll continue to try my best.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed reworking of the section "2007-present"

I have reworked the section "2007-present". What do you all think about it?

2008 proved to be a fortuitous year for Winslet, as both of her released projects, Revolutionary Road (2008) and The Reader (2008), received wide critical acclaim, and each received a Golden Globe Award. The Academy Awards, which restrict an actor's being nominated twice in the same category within the same year, recognized only one of Winslet's 2008 performances, which resulted in some controversy.

Though she was originally the first choice for her role in Stephen Daldry's The Reader, the film adaptation of Bernhard Schlink's 1995 novel of the same name, a scheduling conflict with Revolutionary Road resulted in Winslet initially turning down the role, and Nicole Kidman replacing her. However, a month after filming began, Kidman's pregancy forced her to leave the project, enabling Winslet to rejoin the film. Employing a German accent, Winslet portrayed a former Nazi concentration camp guard who has an affair with a teenager, and who years later stands trial for war crimes. Winslet later admitted that the role had been difficult for her, as she found it "not natural to sympathise with a SS guard." The film, which co-starred Ralph Fiennes, garnered generally mixed reviews, while Winslet's performance received rave reviews, as well as earning her sixth Academy Award nomination, which she won. The performance also earned her the BAFTA Award for Best Actress, a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress, and the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture.

Revolutionary Road was directed by Winslet's husband Sam Mendes, and reunited her with her Titanic costar, Leonardo DiCaprio. After reading Justin Haythe's sceenplay adaptation of Richard Yates' 1961 novel of the same name, it was Winslet who conceived of both Mendes and DiCaprio working with her on the film. Regarding her first time working with her husband, Winslet commented that it was "a great thing" to see other sides of him. DiCaprio commented that his long-term friendship with Winslet proved to be an advantage for their "fight scenes," as did the relaxed environment which Mendes created for the actors. In his review of the film, Scott Foundas of the Village Voice said: "As Winslet has already demonstrated once this season (in The Reader), among her seemingly boundless gifts is an acute grasp of bright young women beset by some intractable inner torment." David Edelstein of New York stated in his review of the film: "There isn’t a banal moment in Winslet’s performance—not a gesture, not a word. Is Winslet now the best English-speaking film actress of her generation? I think so." For her performance, Winslet was awarded her second Golden Globe of the year, this time for Best Actress.

--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is far too late here to propose changes after having plowed in and made myriad others. I think this is an article that I worked on for almost a year and for some reason, you've jumped on it now and managed to render an article that had been completely stable for all of that time, into one that is not. I don't know why you've decided to jump on this and make all of these sudden changes, but your edits have knocked it out of GA criteria re: stability. Thanks for that. There is no need that I can see for sticking in a "notes" section and I think that is totally unnecessary. This edit moved the content away from the reference. You did that twice. The reference was there to support "the actress served as somewhat of a “patron saint”", not the names of the co-stars. Bad form. I see no way not to pull this from GA consideration at this time. I'm personally sick to my stomach that all of this has come up now and I don't have the quality of health to allow my blood pressure to rise like this. Another eye bleed is imminent. I'm sorry Tony, how can this possibly pass now? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on GA qualification, but I do see when an article can be improved upon, and I think that's the basis of improving an article until it reaches a satisfactory state. Is it so important for you to have those two letters G-A at the top of the page, and a notch on your user page for you to forget about "CONSENSUS". I wish I could prove to you that I am not trying to sabotage the article, which I hope you are not deluded enough to think is your article alone. Clue: It's not. On the contrary, I have spent a few hours working to the best of my ability to add a tiny bit of missing coherence, I'm not trying to own anything. Here's an example if you don't believe me. Your reversion of my edit for the movie "Quills" was actually the "bad form" edit, not mine, as all you had to do was move the ref over to the "patron saint" clause. Instead you reverted the whole thing which inaccurately reads as if Kate Winslet was inspired by the Marquis de Sade. You see? You didn't even realize that I had corrected the application of the clause. You ask questions, but you don't ask them on the talk page, you ask them in your edit summaries as you are reverting. Another example of your well-intentioned but harmful editing is exhibited in your repeated claim that Heavenly Creatures did not receive "dozens of awards but 20," which is ridiculous not because you're wrong, but because the sentence we're dealing with is not Heavenly Creatures, but Sense and Sensibility. Poor thing, let's take a deep breath, and assume good intentions, me in you and you and me, and please read my comments above. I strove to answer you thoughtfully. As a sidenote, I think the way you can maintain stability on this article by addressing any concerns that come along, and not by simply reverting blindly without taking the time to understand the edits. By the way, how much time is left before the administrator reads it again?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no consensus reached here. The other problem is that you charged in and didn't bother posting to this page about it until after you'd made multiple edits. How Is anyone supposed to know what you're doing when all we see are the results. You still moved the source away from what it was supporting. Please don't patronize me ("poor thing"). Whether it was Heavenly Creatures or Sense and Sensibility, dozens of awards were not won and that is extraneous in regard to what were mostly screenwriting awards. And please do not make a sideways nod to insinuating ownership. Regardless, this has introduced an instability to this article, and yes, to a certain extent, a GA status is a desirable thing. Don't discount that this article has been worked up to that nomination or that the editing and reverting the GA reviewer jeopardizes that nomination. Lots more than a few hours work went into this article and rushing in to rewrite sections without first discussing that drives right over and through that. Yes, a GA is important. It is disengenous to suggest otherwise, especially when this happens during the GA review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

a call for feedback from other editors

Obviously, Wildhartlivie did a good thing nominating this article, and most likely spent did some good work on it before that, but in the last day, I have witnessed an wound up, bossy type who I think would now do better to sit back and nurse that one's own health, and let other editors scramble to meet the GA deadline. So, let's hear from some other editors. Who sees improvements in the version of the article from ten edits ago (here), before they were all reverted? And who thinks my edits should stay reverted? And who has other ideas? This is WP, for the love of knowledge! Let's have some fun! All within WP guidelines, of course.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is entirely improper to characterize another editor as "an wound up, bossy type". Please adhere to civility guidelines here and desist from making personal attacks upon a disagreeing editor. I happen to agree with her changes and have to wonder why you would want to rewrite an article under Good article nomination all the while attacking that nomination as you did above. I do not see your edits as improving the article. Mostly what I see is your trying to ram through what you think without discussing changes first or addressing what has been raised as problems with what you've done. You even edit warred with the good article reviewer here. This article has been here, virtually unchanged, except for improved referencing, for a long period of time. What makes you think that it "suddenly" needs "improved"? I personally think your edits need to stay reverted and you desist from edit warring over it. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your perspective, LaVidaLoca. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea (several actually). Comment on content, not the contributor. Don't edit war unless someone is actually vandalizing an article. Don't make mass changes to an article while a GA review is running if there are protests. Ol' bossy Wildhartlivie wasn't the only one who reverted you so take that as a sign to step away for the time being. There are seven billion different articles here to work on, so I find edit wars over supposed improvements to high profile articles beyond absurd. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you realize how offensive your opening sentence is. Don't be so confident in your own rightness that you start to believe you have the right to speak about another editor in this manner. You don't. You've been given some good advice here, and I won't repeat it. I'll just say that I agree with every word of it. Here's something else for you to consider. Wildhartlivie has done a lot of work on this article, and has probably invested more effort than any other editor to raise it to its current standard. That does not mean she owns the article or that it can't be changed, or that you are not welcome to contribute, but she deserves more courtesy than you have extended. She certainly deserves more than you suggesting she be put out to pasture. You suddenly appear here, giving every indication that you think you know best, and start making changes throughout the article that undermine Wildhartlivie's past efforts and potentially damage the GA nomination, without necessarily elevating the article to the point that the edits and the attitude behind them, are worth the aggravation. Perhaps you're acting with the best of intentions and enthusiasm, but even so, how do you think you look from where she is sitting? Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to comment here, as I've worked with both Abie and Livie, and know them both to be very good editors. Abie, I think it's probably best to strike your comment about Wildhartlivie, as it's certainly not appropriate (and actually kind of nasty). We all get mad and say things in anger that we regret later, and I think this is one of them (at least for WP issues). I think the comment temporarily closed more doors than it opened concerning the discussion, as can often happen. But the door can be reopened! We're all good-faith editors in this discussion, and we know it. Just speaking my piece... Doc9871 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WOW! Nice! Thanks all for your suggestions, and for the clue as to what the majority want. (Hey, Doc!) I want to clarify a couple things: I didn't initially come here knowing that the article was undergoing GA nomination, or who Wildhartlivie or Tony the Tiger was. I came because I had the energy to work on Kate Winslet's article.

-As for the reaction that I should show Wildhartlivie more respect, I think these suggestions may have arisen as a result of mistaking my tone. My referring to that one as a "poor thing" and going on to say that Wildhartlivie should be "sitting back and nursing that one's health" were in response to some of Wildhartlivie's health-oriented comments, like this one from above: "I'm personally sick to my stomach that all of this has come up now and I don't have the quality of health to allow my blood pressure to rise like this. Another eye bleed is imminent. I'm sorry Tony, how can this possibly pass now?"

-My original intention was to breeze through, edit the article to a state which I would consider perfect, and then move on, letting the main editors of the page take what they wanted from my changes, fully expecting that my edits would be corrected upon. I understand now that the blanket reverting which resulted was partly because I hadn't explained my intention beforehand. Regardless, the consensus seems to suggest that I be the one to sit back and nurse my health, so I think I'll take that advice and skip this "Kate Winslet article" town for another article. But I should note that if I ever bump into any of you again, I assure you I won't be harboring any grudges, I see this whole encounter as an amusing exercise in communication. Farewell.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than suggesting that we have all mistaken your tone, (and that the mistake is ours?), perhaps you should have acknowledged that we were only reading what you actually wrote. Anyway, if you've found this amusing, that's wonderful. You're probably alone there. It would have been nice if you'd apologised for the tone of your comment, rather than just trying to explain it away as our misunderstanding, but as long as you don't do it again. Rossrs (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I just cleaned up several errors that had been introduced into the "Awards and nominations" section over the past couple of months. The most significant of these was the claim "Upon earning her second Oscar nomination at age 22, [Winslet] became the youngest to do so." This is simply false. Sal Mineo earned his second Oscar nomination at age 21 for Exodus. DocKino (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2007-present section

Congrats on the GA status Wildhartlivie et all! I know I'm not popular here, as I got off on the wrong foot originally. But I've rewritten the 2007-present section, and am leaving it for you all to decide if it's worth anything. There are a couple little grammar improvements such as "an SS guard" as opposed to "a SS guard"; an added quote or two, and some restructuring. Hope some of it looks good to yall. Even if not, thanks for giving it a look. You can find it in the Page History under my self-reverted "test section". And once again, congrats on the hard work!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me—nice work, Abie. Jonyungk (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue as to why you would propose making changes to a section that just two days ago passed good article nomination. Changing that section would throw the entire good article into jeopardy. Why would you want to do that when multiple editors spoke up against this very thing? What is your point here? You didn't bother to speak up during the actual assessment process to say anything here and it's not bolstered by a wiki-friend popping in to comment on it. And thanks for the compliment on having worked this article up to and through good article status, Jonyungk. Your sentiments about it mean a lot. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartliive, I honestly cannot tell whether you are giving me an honest compliment or being sarcastic. I just read the article through for the first time last night and was impressed with the work done on it. Apologies if I somehow gave offense. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Rossrs and I literally spent 3 weeks on the GA review alone. It was a long and arduous process. The article itself was about a year and a half in the rendering. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, Wildhartlivie? I've had enough of your hostility. First, you told me not to make edits during the GA assessment, even though the reviewer said that several of my edits were good, and so I backed off. And, now that the assessment is over, and you've got your GA status, you still don't let me touch the article! Well, I've got news for you, friend. You don't own this article. It's free. So, move over. There is still work to be done. Don't forget that "A" status and "FA" status are still ahead of us. I'm adding this article to my watchlist, and we're steering this thing forward, like it or not. So, I recommend you get used to it. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Abie, it does seem a little odd that you did not comment at the GA review, but choose to return to the article so quickly after the GA process was completed. The timing looks a bit off, that's all. Whatever your motives are, at least try to understand how it looks. You started off with "I know I'm not popular here", but it doesn't have to be that way. You are right in saying that the article needs to move forward, and now might be a good time to focus on the article. With regards to your edits, I think there is a mix of good and not-so-good, and this comment is intended in good faith. Overall it's not bad, but some of the changes do not seem necessary to me. The main thing, to me, is that the tone is different to that in the rest of the article. That's a difficulty with any article. When different editors get involved in writing different sections, the individual "voices" are sometimes audible, and they shouldn't be. The article should read in one "voice". That was achieved fairly well (but not perfectly) during the review (and before) but your edit introduced a different voice, and so the overall tone and flow of the section was changed - some of it was for the better, and some not. Some of the writing is awkward. Changing "it was Winslet who suggested that both should work with her" to "it was Winslet who conceived of both Mendes and DiCaprio working with her on the film" is one example because the word "conceived" is not the natural word to use there. "Regarding her first time working with her husband, Winslet commented that it was "a great thing" to see other sides of him" is another. Technically not wrong, but quite awkward.

The section regarding The Reader is more on track, in my opinion. Some of the changes there improve the flow and the only part there that I think doesn't work is "Winslet admitted..." "Admitted" is one of those words that subtly conjures up a negative context (WP:WTA) because it usually follows an accusation. Although things like "Winslet said" or "Winslet stated" are kind of banal, sometimes that is the most neutral way to word things. That's a minor point. I'm also not sure why the info about The Reader and Revolutionary Road was changed around. If that was to bring it into chronological order based on production date, or based on release date, it should have something in the text to indicate the progression, but it would need to be consistent. Although the first paragraph notes Revolutionary Road first and The Reader second, the edit changed their order, so it should have also been changed in the first paragraph. I'm not sure what your reason was for this, so I may be missing something there. Rossrs (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful answer, Rossrs. I accept that it was made in good faith, and I hope you trust the same from my comments, because that's how I intend them. I understand your point regarding the "one voice" and I agree. My main reason for wanting to edit this section in particular, I should explain, is for that first paragraph. To elaborate, I think 2008 was a particularly momentous year in Winslet's career, and so I think a kind of introductory paragraph to the section is in order. As for the sequence of the films, I meant to set them according to release date, and agree that I failed to achieve that same sequence in the first paragraph. I also agree with your perspective on the word "admitted", the superiority of "suggested" over "conceived", and that the sentence regarding Winslet's perception of her husband while at work needs to be rephrased. In addition, there's one more sentence that doesn't seem to flow well in my judgment, and I'm curious about how it sounds to you. I'm referring to the first sentence in the "Revolutionary Road" paragraph. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, Abie? I'm really quite tired of you coming in and making changes to this article both during the GA nomination and immediately afterward, both of which jeopardized the ongoing GA process. You have failed to answer direct questions like why would you do such a thing and why a person with whom you exchange talk page posts would come in to congratulate you on disrupting the process. You seem to ignore that the simple fact was, your changes during a GA process was disruptive, while the edits you made introduced confusion and errors, the reviewer didn't notice that, he only read what you changed. Why would anyone come in and make massive changes to an article undergoing a review, anyway? What is the purpose. And again, why would your "friend" here come in, congratulate you, and ignore that you disrupted the process. Not to mention the action itself was done in a way to challenge the entire article. This is bad faith editing and bad faith disruption. I don't much care whether or not you don't like my comments. Your actions were deliberate and disruptive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really feel a need to explain myself to Wildhartlivie, as I'm not here to engage in a hostile back in forth, but rather in civil editing and improving of articles. If someone has trouble assuming good faith and being civil, that's not my problem. My comments and questions regarding the article to Rossrs stand.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think you do owe an explanation for your actions that jeopardized a GA review and why you "test edited" a change within 2 days of the article passing GA. There's a standard of good faith that was violated in that action and you owe an explanation for that action, not just to me, but to other editors here, including the GA reviewer. You were the one who started your post out here referring to your popularity in an aggressive manner. Why would you want to take actions that jeopardize a review process? If you refuse to answer that, you are refusing to work collaboratively and that speaks for itself. Please stop trying to jeopardize the review results. And as for you comments about an "A review", we don't do those anymore. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your tone and your demands are coming across as extremely uncivil to me and don't seem focused on the present issue, which are my edits to the section entitled "2007-present". Either comment on the issue in civil tone, or don't, but if you seek to stir up a fight, I'm simply going to have to report this to an admin. I'm keeping in mind not to be personally affronted by your words, but that you are proving to be a detriment to the editing experience. The choice is yours. My last comment to Rossrs still stands.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing incivil about expecting an explanation for actions that served to jeopardize a good article review, nor actions that continue to jeopardize its status and asking why you did that. If you continue to refuse to answer those very valid questions, then your posting here is pointless. Your posts here, four at my last count, discounted anything I had to say, make accusations of incivility, hint at personal attacks and continue to refuse to respond to direct questions about your motives. You apparently do not intend to explain your actions, which were inappropriate, and thus, your "test edit" does not merit discussion. Either explain yourself and drop the personal affronts or just stop. You have no idea about "my tone", I was unaware you had extrasensory perception regarding perceiving "tone" in typing, but I assure you, the questions regarding your actions and motives are completely valid. Report it to an administrator, I suspect they would like an explanation for charging in and putting a GA review in jeopardy as well. Don't think those questions aren't prevalent in anyone else's minds as well. Why would anyone act in a way that directly jeopardizes a good article review and immediately after it passes, act in a way that continues to throw the status into question and do so intentionally and deliberately? And don't bother with reporting it to an adminstrator, I've done so myself about this entire process and your refusal to answer valid questions about your actions. And let's not overlook the characterization of editors here as having "some kind of wild, almost rabid protection instinct over one to three editors on that article. They won't let me get a word in. Knowing me, I'm probably the cause of the attitude." Yeah, if you spent a year and a half developing an articel and finally taking it to GA review only to have it jeopardized by someone who never edited here before, a bit of protectiveness is to be expected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Return to the point

Looking over all of this (quickly, as some of this just got repetitive), I would like to propose that we bypass all of this, and get back to the focus of the article. Good job to everybody's contributions, including those who have spent a great deal of time on the article as well as those who even made minor changes), a community-built article has reached GA status with the potential of going higher (I haven't contributed to the article really myself, except for securing permission for three of the images). Since the article is now well-developed, let's get away from all of the back-and-forth and focus on the issues raised. As the article is already developed, most large changes should be brought here and allow consensus to form. This article will only continue to improve if reverts are avoided and the editors remain around by not being blocked. Please, for the rest of this discussion, let's move on to what changes are again proposed and move forward while keeping a cool head. Now, we should all go off to watch The Office, get some comedy coursing through our veins, and return to this article when ready to focus on improvements. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oscar nominations

I'm removing the bit about Winslet being the youngest to get two Oscar nominations. Assuming the dates in the Angela Lansbury article are correct, you can see she was younger when she got her two. Angela was born in 1925, her first nomination was for Gaslight in 1944 and her second for The Picture of Dorian Gray in 1945. The difference between 1945 and 1925 is 20. Tabercil (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah. Did some digging and found better information here: "When she was a teenager, Angela won nominations for her work in "Gaslight" and "The Picture of Dorian Gray". Tabercil (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And a reliable source to affirm is what was requested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ephraim Katz, The Film Encyclopedia (HarperPerennial): Lansbury was "born on Oct. 16, 1925" (p. 789). "She was nominated for the best supporting actress Oscar for her first role, in Gaslight (1944), and subsequently received nominations twice more, for The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) and The Manchurian Candidate (1962)" (p. 790). DocKino (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)