Talk:Jenna Ortega

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

In November 2023, it was announced that Ortega was leaving the upcoming [[Scream VII] due to scheduling conflicts. These news came one day after her co-star

2023 Israel-Hamas war
.

}} 174.165.66.224 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pamzeis (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone correct the 1st line

It says 'actor' instead of 'actress'. Apparently I can't edit since it's semi-protected Triple Doctor (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @
MOS:GNL; we should use gender-neutral language where possible. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Also when it makes sense to do so. Don't follow a guideline to the point it goes against common practice such as the case here. In this specific case "actress" is the correct choice. We generally use actress for women unless the subject has expressed a desire to be referred to as an "actor". Actress is not considered a lessor title which is one of the reasons a lot of the female titles for other occupations get changed to the male title or some other neutral word for GNL reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated gendered terms belong with smallpox in a bygone age; let's leave them there. Female actors are actors. In this source, we find: "I do not want to be pigeonholed as an actor, and I want to do the most diverse roles that I possibly can and really switch up." Anyway I'm done here; do as you wish. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one isn't outdated and is still in common use even officially for some awards. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Change "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented immigrant" 173.66.38.32 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Original accurately reflects what the reference stated. Also see
WP:EUPHAMISM. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Review

Passed. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Jenna Ortega/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a start on this this week. I'll ping when I've done a first pass. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
    Lead, layout, etc. are fine. Some minor grammar points I'll list below, but good enough for GA as-is.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
    Has a refs section, which looks fine. Earwig copyvio checker says 29.1%, but looking more closely that's almost all due to quotes.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Major aspects covered, and is on-topic.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No obvious bias.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is relatively stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images are all relevant, with suitable captions, though just "Ortega in 20xx" may be slightly too brief. (No alt text, but that's not required for GA.) Images all claim to have a Creative Commons license.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Early life

  • "Ortega stated rejections motivated her" to "Ortega stated that rejections motivated her"
    •  Done

Lead

  • Oxford comma suggested before the "and" in "for which she received nominations at the Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy and Screen Actors Guild Awards"
    •  Done

2012–2017

  • No comma needed after "Ortega made her acting debut in the sitcom Rob (2012)".
    • minus Removed

2018–2021

  • "Ortega led the high-school drama film" needs clarifying I think.
    • Could you clarify on what needs clarifying??
      •  Question: Led in what way, as in directed/produced/lead cast member, etc. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Revised

2022–present

  • Oxford comma suggested before the "and" in "style of speaking and facial expressions"
    •  Done
  • Is "the" needed in "episode of the NBC's sketch comedy series"?
    • minus Removed

Upcoming projects

  • Change "Ortega is set to star" to "Ortega is set to star in"
    •  Done
  • Needs a comma after "a dark comedy co-starring Paul Rudd"
    •  Done
  • Is "attached" the right word in "Ortega is attached to star in Alba"?
    • I believe it's correct, but probably not the most encyclopaedic, so I've replaced it

Influences

  • "She also admired Fanning's sister Elle and followed both of their careers as a child." should have commas either side of "Elle".
    •  Done

Role choices

  • "more-varied" doesn't need a hyphen.
    • minus Removed
  • Change "in 2021 she did not want" to "in 2021 that she did not want".
    •  Done

Personal life

  • "more-challenging doesn't need a hyphen.
    • minus Removed

General

There's a few instances of quotes following a colon where I'd have used a comma.

I believe that's just a matter of style and is grammatically correct. Pamzeis (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to note these are all minor, and not essential to achieve GA. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing check

Glancing at the sources they look okay overall. Sampling 24 randomly (which I think is more than enough):

13 - interview, but that's fine
18 - this is for Iron Man 3 - but is it your interpretion of it that it's "successful at the box office"? (I personally agree it was successful though, and ref 20 backs it up.)
  • I've removed this bit entirely, as it's not really relevant to Ortega's career
23 - ok
25 - ok
29 - ok
33 - ok
45 - ok
48 - is "craves more independence from her parents" enough to say "stubborn" in the article?
52 - ok
75 - ok
80 - ok
94 - ok
95 - ok
103 - ok
110 - ok
120 - self-published by Ty Burr, but I think that's ok in this case.
129 - ok
180 - ok
181 - ok
194 - ok
197 - ok
200 - ok
202 - ok
210 - ok

Pamzeis, All my comments are very minor really, so I have to say well done for this overall! I've give you chance to respond to things before, but I think it's almost ready to be marked as GA. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham: Thanks for your comments :) I've responded to the above. Pamzeis (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good to me now, good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Jenna Ortega
Jenna Ortega
Improved to Good Article status by Pamzeis (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 45 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Pamzeis (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • New GA, well written. Some small suggestions:
    • Might be good to add half a sentence describing It's All Love
    • A lot of character names in the running text don't add anything; a description of who the character is would be better (as is done well for Yes Day, The Fallout). Relatedly, some works (After Words, Richie Rich, etc.) are missing genre labels which would be informative.
    • Some transitions between topics are abrupt; as just one example, ... offer true horror bona fides to this flick". Ortega starred in the slasher film ...
    • portraying her character's relatability: know what you mean, but phrasing seems off
    • her character's actions and dialogue did not suit her personality: actions and dialogue in just the script or as shot? Wednesday's personality or Ortega's? could clarify
    • described the material as risky: explain
But none of that holds up this nom. Photo OK. Hooks check out except ALT0, which yes, seems a little too far for WP:CALC. Incredible QPQs. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Revision needed: "tried to participate"

> She also tried to participate in the March for Our Lives movement, which led demonstrations in support of U.S. gun control legislation.

This needs revising because She did attend. I'm not sure how to find a good source for this. But here's a picture of her there.

https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/actress-jenna-ortega-participates-in-the-march-for-our-news-photo/938457026 Bome sall 1 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised this. Pamzeis (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenna_Ortega&oldid=1220216409"