Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cate Blanchett on screen and stage/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Cate Blanchett on screen and stage edit

Cate Blanchett on screen and stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Cate Blanchett is one of the best actresses of all time and probably the best of her generation. Her list deserves to be celebrated, much like her films and achievements. I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2
  • The first two sources [1] and [2] don't really mention Paradise Road being her debut. Find another one that does.
  • "The following year, she garnered worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth, which garnered" — Two instances of the word "garnered" in the same sentence. Please find another alternative. Also, find a source that says Elizabeth is acclaimed (even though I know it is) for those who may not have heard about the film. I would also consider splitting the sentence into two as it is quite long.
  • Write something about her role as Kate Hepburn in The Aviator such as Blanchett's is the only portrayal of an Academy-Award winning actress to have won an Oscar. Something like it."
  • "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Oscar nominations for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat." — Writing "Oscar" would seem informal even though the awards are known that way. so, rephrase it as "In 2007, she received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat."
  • It should be "[5][6][8]" instead of "[6][5][8]".
  • Do explain a bit about some of her stage work, particularly those that received recognition.
  • Source for Parklands is not there.

That's about it from me. I do recommend a thorough source review for the list. Krish, good job on taking an initiative to get Cate Balnchett's filmography and stage work list this far.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Done. Additionally, I have changed the lead significantly. Let me know if there is any problem with the new version.Krish | Talk 15:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with me. I will provide a support now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • In the sentence about Electra, I would link the play in the phrase “the same name” part.
  • I would frame the phrase “opposite Geoffrey Rush” with commas as looking at it quickly makes it look like Rush won something.
  • Instead of “made her feature film debut with a supporting role”, I would say “made her feature film debut in a supporting role”. I think “in” is more appropriate in this context than “with”.
  • In the phrase “garnered her another Academy Award nomination”, I would specify what the nomination was for (it may be repetitive, but it is important to clarify that this is for best supporting actress).
  • This is minor, but I would say “this feat” instead “the feat”. The use of “the” just sounds a little weird to me in this context.
  • I am not sure where there is a “<” sign separating the references in the sentence on her 2015 roles.
  • I am not sure you would use the phrase “the former” following a list of three items; I have only seen that in lists of two items. I would just say the name of the film instead.
  • Wonderful job with this list. I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will support this nomination, and good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Hmm...

  • This is a long sentence which can be broken into two comfortably.
  • Is it really important to mention Rush here? If yes, can you please explain why?
  • Because he once was her frequent collaborator.Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those critics awards were given by Sydney Theatre Company. Lovely. Now, instead of writing "...won her the Sydney Theatre Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." can't we say something like "...won her the Sydney Theatre's Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." to ensure simplicity?
  • There's an article for it, so why bother squeezing?Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blanchett received worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth (1998), which garnered her a Golden Globe and BAFTA Award for Best Actress and her first Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. -- Another long one which can be broken comfortably.

More to follow... ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, her other 1999 releases — the widely praised An Ideal Husband and the largely panned Pushing Tin — were unsuccessful. Two things.
  • When using em-dashes, please do not provide spaces before and after them.
  • The term "widely praised" is sounding vague. Please be clear here.
  • Really? But "largely panned" is not? Jokes aside, I have used this to showcase that a praised film sometimes also fails.Krish | Talk 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galadriel or Gladriel? Read this line: " She briefly reprised her role of Gladriel in the The Hobbit trilogy (2012-14)."
  • A better alt comment would do.

Let me know once they are done. I will return after three days. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave three days and usually wait until they are done. But, given that the nominator has some RL issues and that the comments are already resolved, i declare my support. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
  • I think the "notable" is really unnecessary in the Oleana entry.
  • Make sure that the use of "a"s and "the"s is consistent.
  • Please point out where exactly this problem is?Krish | Talk 07:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The awards, for instance: "won a Golden Globe and BAFTA", they should both have an article.
  • A comma after "During this period"?
  • "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Academy Award" - Best Supporting Academy?
  • This paragraph uses the "Academy Award", a lot, really a lot. While I won't push it, but if you can find a way to minimise the use, that would simplify and elevate the prose.

Fine work Krish, this is one of best written introductions that I've read here. The first two paragraphs sure are. Good job. NumerounovedantTalk 17:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Year ranges now need centuries at both ends of the range, per MOS:DATERANGE.
  • Use en-dash for numerical ranges, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • "was a notable box office success" what made it more "notable" than other "box office successes"?
  • That is how media describes its success.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Television and music videos not even mentioned in the lead.
  • Where else one music video has been mentioned intge lead? Well, this is because she mostly known for her film and stage roles. Her television roles didn't have same amount of impact.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • She never had an extensive career in TV. I have modelled this after other featured lists. It's your POV.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." not really my POV. If you have a whole section of this list dedicated to TV, you should at least note it in passing in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link Documentary, but if you insist, do it every time, the table is sortable.
  • Stephen Sewell is a dab link.
  • As is Jonathan Kent.
  • "Harvey Theatre, NYC" comma needed after NYC, and it really should be New York, rather than NYC.
  • "From playwright Timothy Daly. Production was remounted at the Sydney Theatre Company the following year" full stop required after second sentence. Check other notes.
  • Checkov has two h's.
  • The Spoils should be (song), not (single), to avoid the piped redirect.
  • Tri-City Herald is a work.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man:Done. As for last few lines, well, it that director section was added by an IP. So I removed it as this list follows pattern of other filmography articles.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, not "done". Please mark off each comment individually as you have missed some. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • Ref 13 has all caps in the title that need to be fixed.
  • Ref 83 is a bare link and requires further formatting.
  • All of the references appear reliable enough and, aside from the couple of comments above, are well-formatted.
  • The link-checker tool doesn't show any dead links.
  • I don't see Blanchett's name mentioned in ref 60, (unless I'm missing it here) which is being used to confirm her role in the second Hobbit movie. Assuming I didn't miss the relevant part, you'll need to find another ref to fully support her role.
  • Ref 41 (Entertainment Weekly) doesn't appear to support the last name of Blanchett's character in Little Fish.

Of the 3 citations I spot-checked, I found issues with 2 of them (ref 65 checked out fine), which is somewhat concerning. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – After seeing a few issues in my initial source review, I checked three more references: numbers 44, 50, and 67. Refs 44 and 50 don't give the last names of the respective characters, while ref 67 doesn't give the name of the director, or say that she was an executive producer. Sorry, but since I'm finding this much content unsupported by the citations, I don't feel comfortable promoting this list until all of the references are checked against the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Re-checked everything and replaced some of the sources. Now everything is sourced.Krish | Talk 12:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked several other sources—numbers 32, 40, 42, and 69—and spotted no further problems. The only other issue I saw was that there is a space between refs 4 and 6 in the third sentence of the second paragraph. Fix that and I think we can consider the source review passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 19 July 2017 (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_list_candidates/Cate_Blanchett_on_screen_and_stage/archive1&oldid=1138479284"