Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maggie Gyllenhaal

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [1].

Maggie Gyllenhaal[edit]

Nominator(s): ThinkBlue

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I have expanded the article and have brought it to GA status and one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dweller
  • Maybe I'm being grizzly here, but I'm puzzled by the partial use of sourcing in the Lead. Either source all the information there, or none of it, on the basis that it's sourced in the main body. This way, it makes the information presented seem less reliable. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University." Unsourced. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she worked a summer job as a waitress" To an Englishman, this comes across as less than formal language. Unsure about American English, so left it. I fixed another more definite informality. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree, but I'm pretty sure it's standard American usage. There's no question that it sounds sloppy (to us), but I'm hesitant to critique it, lest pride is wounded and an AE vs. BE conflict erupts.--Adasta 10:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the sentence, does it make sense? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • lacuna re her high school. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "break-out role" Do you mean break-through role? Even so, it seems POV unless someone said so in RS.they did --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, "break-out" is OK - my English dictionary includes "a great success" among its meanings. We would say "breakthrough" in the UK, but perhaps break-out is a more usual Am-Eng form? Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead looks a reasonable length - could add fiancé to it. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't put the sentence you suggest into the lead. It has one "and" too many. I have restructured in the Personal life section, where I think it belongs. In the lead, I advise you limit yourself to a minimal "Since 2006 she has been engaged to actor Peter Sasgaard". Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got everything. The reason I left the references in the lead was to support the information stated there, so it wouldn't become a problem, but seeing how it was brought up, I removed them. I got your concerns, except for the high school thing; Hardvard-Westlake was the high school Gyllenhaal graduated from. Also, would this, for the lead, ---> "In her personal life, Gyllenhaal has been in relationship with actor Peter Sasgaard and announced their engagement in 2006 and together they have a daughter", work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I helped peer-review this. During and after the review, a great deal of work was done to bring the article up from what was a fairly raw state to its present form. This is now, I believe, a comprehensive and well-written biography of an interesting up-and-coming star. I have just one quibble, and one caveat:

  • Quibble: Could a more easily-understood term than "poverty non-profit advocacies" be found, to describe what she is supporting here? This is a post-peer review addition to the text, and although I can roughly guess its meaning, I'm not sure, and other readers might be likewise confused.
    • I removed "non-profit", don't know if it helps. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No! - "poverty advocacies" makes no sense at all - sounds as if she is advocating poverty. The best wording I can suggest is "anti-poverty campaigns", if that describes what she was doing. But don't leave it as it is! Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Caveat: My support has to be dependent on the sources being checked out as "reliable" by FA standards. I'm afraid that identifying reliable sources isn't my strong point, especially in the movie world where I know next to nothing. So I will require assurance on this point, after a sources check by Ealdgyth or another sources specialist.

I have done a little more copyediting, and have also commented on some of the points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • My support is now unqualified, as the soucees have been checked out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks generally good. A couple of things:

  • It's a bit repetitive at times. At the end of the last paragraph of the lead, three sentences start with "She..." There are similar issues with the end of the first paragraph of "2006–present" and the end of the second paragraph of "Personal life".
  • The quote "Gyllenhaal humanizes her so deeply and richly, though, that" seem to set up a false contrast, because what goes before is omitted. I would use ellipsis: "richly...that".

Couldn't really find anything else. Lampman (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check and I hope I cleared the consistency issues. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support. Lampman (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the references and replaced "Digital Spy" with an Orlando Sentinel source. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Second source is to a wikipedia mirror [2] and has been for some time. Haven't looked at anything passed that. 86.44.30.20 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference has been replaced. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This oppose from an IP should be struck, as the issue raised is resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Hardvard-Westlake" Is this correct with a hyphen or should it be a dash?
    • I think its with a hyphen. Sorry about that, its with a dash and has been added. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donnie Darko is mentioned in the lead, but no mention in the main body of text.
  • It's not exactly contentious, but reference 8 seems to be a blog.
  • The second image, while it helps to break up the text, doesn't seem to add much that the infobox image already does.

Peanut4 (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Overall, the article looks good, but I have some concerns:

  • Per Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language she should probably be introduced as an actor, not an actress (though there is some debate about this)
    • I disagree, why is it that articles like Reese Witherspoon and Katie Holmes have "actress". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least in the case of Reese Witherspoon I know that the article passed FAC with the word 'actor' in it, it was changed back since then apparently. I personally don't care really, but I know that some people do.
        • I know where your coming from, seeing that Angelina Jolie has "actor", unless its necessary, I'll make the switch. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the first section called "Biography"? Isn't the whole text a biography? Having just a single sub-section doesn't make much sense either, why not simply calling the first section "Early life"?
  • Is Secretary a romance (lead) or a black comedy (career section)?
  • I'm surprised there is no information at all about her childhood, how she got interested in acting, etc. Is this really all unknown?
    • Yeah, the only thing that is mentioned is that she starred in her father's films and that after graduating from Columbia, she took off to London to study drama, and came back and starred in films. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of roles did she have in the three films she did with her father? Were these all brief cameo appearances? If so, it should be noted.
  • Her role in Donnie Darko must be discussed in more detail. There is more information about her role in the lead section than in the career section.
    • Question: Should the details come after the film is mentioned or say that in Donnie Darko....? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but you will probably have to break up that sentence to add something about Donnie Darko (what character she played etc.). You can't give more information in the lead than in the main body of the text. That breaks the inner logic of the article. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is what I mean: The three films that she had supporting roles, Cecil B. Demented, Donnie Darko, and 40 Days and 40 Nights, alright should I add the info. after the mention of Donnie Darko or start a new sentence in her role in the film? Hope that made sense. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Never mind, I fixed the info. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm afraid this creates more problems, because 40 Days and 40 Nights was not only released after Donnie Darko, but also after Secretary; it breaks chronology. I would instead keep only Cecil B. Demented and Riding in Cars with Boys in that sentence and write a short paragraph after Secretary, in which you could mention 40 Days and 40 Nights, as well as Adaptation and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, two pretty well known film that aren't in the text at all at the moment. EnemyOfTheState|talk 09:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, I think that's better. But Confessions of a Dangerous Mind did not make $15m worldwide, but $33m [3], and it wasn't a critical failure, it was actually quite well received. EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oops, I was looking at another movie and accidentally added that movie gross. So, check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her next roles were in smaller independent films such as ...". "Such as" implies there are others the text does not mention. Also, why is Criminal explained further, but not Casa de los Babys?
  • The last part of the quoted review by Mike Straka ("I loved Gyllenhaal in this movie") should be removed. This offers no useful information for the reader and has the sole function of praising her.
  • Her role in World Trade Center most be explained further, especially since some of her characters in indie and tv films are mentioned a lot more prominently. Also, considering her 9/11 controversy, the film's critical and commercial success could be mentioned briefly.
    • Do you have a suggestion? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What character she played, that the film was generally well received and made $163m worldwide which is her second highest grossing film (I think). Maybe also what she thought about the film since she was involved in a controversy about the subject. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there a specific reason why she replaced Katie Holmes in Batman?
    • Katie Holmes turned down the role to appear in the Batman Begins sequel and Gyllenhaal was cast. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, that's probably nothing that needs to be mentioned.
        • Yeah. Also, I read in an article that before she accepted the role, she wanted Holmes' blessing and she got the green light. Would that be important to include? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "setting a record worldwide, opening-weekend gross of $158,411,483 on its opening day." This makes no sense. The film made $158m on its opening weekend in North America. Not on its opening day and not worldwide.
    • Do you have a suggestion on how to re-write it? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like "The Dark Knight was an big financial success, setting a new opening weekend record at the North America box office. With revenue of $996m worldwide, it became the fourth highest grossing film of all time."
  • The career section is pretty generous towards her in general. There is not a single negative or in some way critical review quoted, and the text also fails to mention that Trust the Man was critically and financially unsuccessful and Mona Lisa Smile certainly wasn't a critical darling either.
    • Will add the detail regarding Trust the Man. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has been added for both Mona Lisa Smile and Trust the Man. Also, every review I've read, they don't give her a bad review on her performances. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way exactly did she "protest" against the Iraq war at the Oscars? If all she did was giving interviews, I'm not sure this sounds right.
    • She was asked on how she felt about the US invading Iraq. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just checked the NY Times story, and she apparently said this at the Independent Spirit Awards, not the Oscars. Also, "spoke out against" might be more accurate?
  • US$ is linked in Personal life, but not when it's first mentioned in the career section. I'm not sure it needs to be linked at all in an article about an American though.
  • Why do so many (apparently) uncontroversial statements have two footnotes? How for example is her relationship with Sarsgaard proven further, if you don't use one, but two links to People.com?
    • I add two references so that the information can be backed-up by two references. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is, if you already have one reliable source, you don't really need a second one. All it does is hurt readability, at least imho. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Controversy" sections should be avoided where possible. If there is a descriptive term for the 9/11 incident without the word "controversy" it would certainly be preferable.
    • What do you suggest? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't know, I guess you could go with a pretty obvious headline like "Comments on 9/11 attacks" or something like that.
  • The Further reading section lists quite a few articles that hardly offer any new information about her. I think only longer, in-depth articles should be linked there. The three articles about the election (A party any prez..., The Hofstra Debate..., Celebrities encourage voter registration...) merely list her name once, and the last two links seem like random stories to me that could be found by the dozen using Google News.
  • One more thing: The infobx lists three critics awards that aren't even mentioned in the filmography. If these awards aren't significant enough to be be mentioned in the filmography, they definitly shouldn't be in the infobox.

EnemyOfTheState|talk 08:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments I was asked to review this and have read it carefully. While I think it is close to FA standards, here are my pretty nitpicky concerns so far:

  • I would mention her daughter in the lead in connection with her realtionship with Peter Sarsgard - having a child is pretty important in someone's life.
  • I know refs in the lead was mentioned above, but there is a direct quote in the lead Gyllenhaal drew criticism in 2005 for her opinion that America was "responsible in some way" for the 9/11 attacks. , and as such it needs a ref per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
  • Her parents' marriage is mentioned, but not their 2008 divorce - I would think having her parents divorce after 32 years would be traumatic for all involved and would mention it either in the Early life or Personal life section.
    • I think I would say something at the end of the first paragraph of Early life after Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University.[4][5] like "Gyllenhaal's parents, who married in 1977, filed for divorce in October 2008." or perhaps "Her parents filed for divorce in Octobner 2008 after 32 years of marriage."[4]
  • There are several internal consistency issues with the article - something is done one way in one place and a different way elsewhere in the article, or the lead (summary) has more detail than the body of the article. The detail should be in the text with the lead as more of a summary.
    • Her mother is linked and "Naomi Foner Gyllenhaal (née Achs)" in the lead, but is unlinked and "screenwriter Naomi Achs" in the Early life section.
    • the lead has her as the "older sister", Early life just has "brother" - perhaps add "younger"
    • the lead says she was 15 when she made her film debut, the text just gives the year the film Waterland was made.
    • At least two films that are linked in the text are not linked in the Filmography section: Waterland and Homegrown. Given all of the film links elsewhere in the Filmography, they should be linked there too.
    • The text calls Trust the Man a 2006 film Following Happy Endings, she starred in the 2006 films Trust the Man..., but the Filmography lists it as a 2005 film.
      • This has been changed in the Filmography to 2006, so I struck it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the date be given for After studying at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London,[6] she had a summer job, working as a waitress in a Massachusetts restaurant.[7] to provide context for the reader?
  • Same thing for She made her theatrical debut in the Berkeley Repertory Theatre production of Patrick Marber's Closer,[10][11] for which she received favorable reviews.[12][13] please
    • There is no date available, all the sources I've read say that after she graduated from Columbia she went to London to study at the Royal Academy. Same goes with the waitress job. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer does have a year date. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward sentence Secretary marked the first time Gyllenhaal performed full frontal nudity on film.[22] - do you really perform nudity? Perhaps something like Secretary was Gyllenhaal's first film role which featured full frontal nudity.[22] would be better?
  • Could this be tightened up? In 2003, she co-starred with Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile.[24] In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, she revealed the reason for accepting the role of Giselle in Mona Lisa Smile was ... to something like In 2003, she co-starred with Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile in the role of Giselle.[24] In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, she revealed the reason for accepting the role was ...?
  • Also need a date in Gyllenhaal returned to theater in a Los Angeles production of Tony Kushner's Homebody/ Kabul as Priscilla, ... please
  • Some short sentences could be combined to flow better perhaps (less choppy):
    • The film generated mostly critical reviews.[26] Manohla Dargis of the Los Angeles Times described the film as "smug and reductive".[27] could perhaps be The film generated mostly critical reviews,[26] with Manohla Dargis of the Los Angeles Times describing it as "smug and reductive".[27]
    • She also recorded songs for the movie's soundtrack.[24][36] She called the role the "roughest, scariest acting ever" and said she is more natural singing on screen than acting.[36] could perhaps be She recorded songs for the movie's soundtrack,[24][36] calling the role the "roughest, scariest acting ever" and adding she is more natural singing on screen than acting.[36]
  • What is this sentence doing in a section called "2002–2005", especially when the next section is "2006-present": Gyllenhaal was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 2006.[38]
  • I think it should at least be "attacks on" in Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks of the same-title towers of New York City.[48][49] I also think the "same-title towers" is a bit odd - I would prefer just linking to World Trade Center (the buildings). This last is my opinion - not actionable if you prefer.
    • Question: What do you mean by "attacks on"? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant either Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the same-title towers of New York City.[48][49] (bolded for emphasis), or perhaps Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers of New York City.[48][49] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid "recently", time rolls on and it won't be that recent - so She recently finished filming the comedy Farlanders, to be released in 2009,[62]... would be better as something like In late 2008 she finished filming the comedy Farlanders, to be released in 2009,[62]... perhaps.
  • In the Controversy section, there should be areference right after the direct quotations per WP:MOSQUOTE
  • This is awkward "expressed" does not seem to the right verb here She said she would have left the project if the Jimenos wanted, but Allison Jimeno expressed that she and her husband were comfortable with her and "had no problem with her in [the] movie".[101][102] maybe "expressed the opinion" or just change it to "said" or some similar verb?

OK, all done. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have struck all the resolved issues
  • Support All of my concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maggie_Gyllenhaal&oldid=1126716552"