Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Catherine Zeta-Jones/archive2

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2016 [1].

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Nominator(s):

Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Support As before, should have passed first time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per SchroCat, Blofeld, et. seq.. This had a solid FAC last time. I chose to stay out of it due to the nature of some disputes, but the issues raised were fixed. This is ready for prime time. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- per Montanabw. The fixes look excellent, the overall prose, flawless, and the layout on par with any FA. Praise indeed to

• Echoing Krimuk with my thanks too – Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments – An excellent piece of work, and I look forward to adding my support. A few minor points before that:

• "née" – we normally italicise this, I think
• "Zeta-Jones' dance" – rather a surprise, and not altogether welcome, to see the AmEng form of possessive used here instead of the usual BrE "Jones's"
• "in a Swansea production of the musical, which was staged at the Swansea Grand Theatre" – too many Swanseas, perhaps. You could advantageously trim to "in a production of the musical at the Swansea Grand Theatre".
• "English National Opera ... Street Scene, an opera by Kurt Weill" – you could avoid the repetition of "opera" by redrawing as "Kurt Weill's Street Scene", (which would have the additional advantage of not calling the piece an opera, which it isn't really – more a mix of opera and musical, despite what the composer called it). I saw that production, which was wonderful, but I confess I didn't spot a star in the making.
• "H. E. Bates'" – another AmE possessive. Likewise Lucas' and Douglas' below.
• "featured as a belly dancer in disguise" – how do you disguise a belly dancer, one wonders? (no answer needed).
• "an aspiring duchess" – is that a duchess who aspires to something or someone who aspires to be a duchess? If the latter, "would-be" might be clearer.
• "hench-woman" – the word is in the OED (to my slight surprise) and Chambers but is not hyphenated by either.
• "Titanic (1996), however, was better received" – would read better without the "however", I think.
• "leading lady in favour of Izabella Scorupco" – I imagine you mean "in preference to...".
• " a significant worldwide audience" – what did it signify? Or do you just mean "large"?
• "Zeta-Jones returned to stage in 2009" – missing a definite article before "stage"?
• "an annual charitable program" – as we're in BrE this should be programme.
• "In The Arms Of Love" – are the second and fourth words really capitalised in the original?
• "the Sight & Sound magazine" – not sure about the definite article. Isn't it rather like referring to "the Punch magazine" or "the Time magazine"?
• "issued a legal notice prohibiting its release" – this seemed odd, and I see, on checking, that it isn't what the source says: the most you can say is that her lawyers threatened to take legal action.
• "Accolades" – I say! A bit over the top, surely? "Awards and nominations" would be less redolent of what User:Ssilvers memorably calls "fancruft".
• "by the Monarchy of the United Kingdom" – not quite accurate (the monarch can do things; the monarchy, being an abstract conception, can't). Better just to say "in the Queen's Birthday Honours" or go straight from "(CBE)" to "in 2010". The title of the award, though ludicrously anachronistic, conveys pretty plainly the country of origin.

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, I'd say. I'll watch with interest. – Tim riley talk 10:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim. All your suggestions taken in board and the alterations made. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief! That was quick. Happy to support. Good work. Tim riley talk 10:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Two further prose suggestions to add to Tim's list. The article begins: "Catherine Zeta-Jones ... is a Welsh actress. Born and raised in Swansea, Zeta-Jones aspired to be an actress from a young age..." – the close repetition of "actress" jars somewhat. You could say: "Zeta-Jones aspired to a theatrical career..." etc. And I think "early age" might read better than "young age". Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks, now tweaked per your advice. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I previously reviewed this under my former username (Z105space), and I believe the article still meets the FA criteria. It has certainly been strengthened since the last review. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MWright96. :)

Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Many thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I previously briefly commented about the reliability of a certain source, but I could not review it due to the constant heat. Top work; engaging prose, brilliant references, and plenty of content! My favorite of her roles will always be Velma Kelly and her "All that Jazz". FrB.TG (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FrB.TG. And yeah, Zeta-Jones is sensational in Chicago, which is my favourite musical film of all time.

Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Many thanks FrB.TG - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article has been thoroughly researched and is well referenced. This definitely deserves to be promoted to a Featured Article.

Thank you, Aoba47. :)

Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Echoing my co-nom: many thanks Aoba47. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Impressive work. She's come a long way since doing Sainsbury's ads ;-) Had a look at some of the sources and spot checked a few, just minor issues:

• Refs 17 and 69 are more 'BBC Wales' than 'BBC News'

I guess Wales represents more of a location parameter, doesn't it?

• Forbes is a magazine not publisher so needs correct parameter

Corrected.

• Publish date for Ref 135? Lemonade51 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

• Thanks for the comments,
  Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Adding (belatedly) my thanks too Lemonade51; cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on comprehensiveness.

• Be consistent in how you format multi-author works - sometimes the second author is last-first, sometimes first-last
• FN36: edition statement shouldn't be part of the title
• Per
  WP:ROTTEN
  , Rotten Tomatoes is generally not a good source to define critical reception of pre-2000 films
• Don't include section names as part of the title (Eg. FN 69)
• FN132: BBC is the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Nikkimaria; all tweaked accordingly, and the RT refs swapped out for print media alternatives. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]