Talk:Kate Winslet/GA1

GA Review

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

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."
• ", 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 befine 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)

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.
• "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"
• "with Winslet commenting" might be better as "which caused Winslet to comment"
• "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".
• 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)

1991-97

• link sitcom, casting call, film set, Gothic novels
• "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.
• "intending to get the small but pivotal role of Lucy Steele." is remote from whatever it is modifying.
• Add a conversion for US$135 million and US$1.8 billion to current dollars (I use this feature in Fountain of Time).
• Is there a link for this use of the term exhaustion?
• most of all high-profile awards is ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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: