Wikipedia:Peer review/Emma Stone/archive1

Emma Stone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

FAC is not my comfort zone and not something I am highly interested in, but from time to time, I want to get out of the former. I believe the article is a sound account of an actress who has not been around much. So mind you she is no Julianne Moore: do not compare her to articles of someone like her. Aside from some reviews for her performances (they were the only good ones I could find), I think this is nicely put together. I will submit it to FAC at some point, unless reviewers think otherwise. Please leave your comments for helping me push it forward.

Thanks, ツ FrB.TG (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Moisejp

Hi FrB.TG. This is an interesting article, and I'd be happy to review it. I'll admit I also have an ulterior motive, that I hope you might consider reviewing Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive1 in return—if you want! Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:

"Stone is one of the highest-paid actresses" → Consider "Stone is one of the world's highest-paid actresses" for flow, and so readers have no doubt about the scope. The Forbes article does mention "world's".
"In addition, Stone supports..." I'm not sure that "In addition" by itself is a good transition here; the rest of the paragraph talks about her successes. How about something like, "In addition to her acting career, Stone is involved in various charities and causes..."
"She was homeschooled for two years; during the period..." → Consider "during this period".
The last two sentences in the lead start with "She"; Maybe replace the first of these with "Stone"?

More comments to follow soon. Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to more of your comments. I will take a look at your article soon. From a quick glance there, it looks like a labor of love. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Early life:

"Stone's family lived on the 16th hole of the Camelback Golf Club": I don't know what this means—i.e., live on a hole of a golf course. Was their home next to the hole? If so, I don't think I would say it this way. I might also consider giving extra information to explain the somewhat unusual circumstances (was her father a caretaker of the golf club at the time?).

Sorry, I only got in one comment this time (I started another one but realized I needed to think more about the issue). I will continue with some more very soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted "aspired" → "aspired to"; I'm not familiar with this usage of "aspire + noun" without "to". If you look at this link [[1]] showing examples of "aspired" used in government and professional websites, ignoring "aspired objective" where "aspired" is an adjective (or past particle) and one case of "aspired by", every other instance shown is "aspired to". Or, if you're not sure you like "aspired to", maybe you can reword the sentence with something like "hoped for"?

Oops! I did not realize that you added that. I have replaced that with "wanted"; hopefully that's better? Oh and if you want to make changes in the future please do so. I did not mean to discourage you. I really liked the other changes you made. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2009–11: Breakthrough:

"Stone read the script before the project was optioned for production, and pursued it along with her manager until preparations were made.": "Preparations" seems a little vague here. I think you mean (something like) while production details were being finalized?
"She later hosted it again in 2011..." Consider removing "later"? It's a little redundant to use both "later" and "again".
"Despite criticizing the film, Drew McWeeny of HitFix wrote that Stone "ties the whole film together"." It could be helpful to be more specific about what McWeeny didn't like about the film.
"She met with Taylor to express a desire to work in the film. Taylor, who thought "Emma was completely awkward and dorky, with her raspy voice", approached her to star in the film." I think this is supposed to mean that initially Stone took the initiative to talk to Taylor to express her interest in the project, and later Taylor offered her the role. But "approached" can also have the meaning of "take the initiative to talk to to someone (make the first move)"; the first time I read it, I was confused about who had initially approached whom. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big comment: So far most of the issues I've mentioned have been quite minor, but I have a more major improvement that I'd like to suggest, which affects the entire article. For me, if you implement this suggestion, it would immensely improve the readability and grammaticality of the prose.

In a nutshell, I suggest that you should make a better distinction between past events requiring the simple past (“she said that”) and the present perfect (“she has said that”). Here is a stylistic and grammatical background for the changes I’m proposing.

Stylistically speaking, you've got two timelines/timeframes in the article. One is her life from 1988 to now, and the reader knows implicitly when each event happened because the events progress from one to the next. The other timeframe is Stone talking about her life—her comments that you quote throughout the article. We don't know from the narrative when she has said these. Currently you use the simple past for both timeframes. In sentences like "In January 2004, she moved with her mother to an apartment in Los Angeles. She recollected, 'I went up for every single show on the Disney Channel and auditioned to play the daughter on every single sitcom'" you've got both timeframes compressed into a single verb tense (the simple past) and it's harder for the reader to extract the relationship of the different components. If these sentences were "In January 2004, she moved with her mother to an apartment in Los Angeles. She has recollected, 'I went up for every single show on the Disney Channel and auditioned to play the daughter on every single sitcom'" then the two timeframes are separated and easier to distinguish.

Grammatically speaking, this was the rule I learned when I used to work as an English teacher: To use the simple past, you need an explicit or implicit time marker (last month, yesterday, in 1999...). It needs to answer the question, "When did it happen?" If it doesn't answer the question, then the timeframe is vague, and the present perfect is more appropriate. For the two timeframes mentioned above, there's no problem using the simple past for recounting her life events from 1988 to now. Even if the year is not mentioned every time, we know implicitly that these events happened sequentially one after the next. However, for Stone's later comments, that come from interviews, the narrative usually does not specify when it happened (except in a few instances I mention below). Thus, the time frame is vague, and the present perfect is much better.

I happened to learn that grammar rule because I worked as an English teacher, and I probably would have never thought about that distinction (between simple past and present perfect) if I hadn't been one. But even if you have never heard of that grammar rule, please consider the following: At its worst, the change I'm suggesting does not take away any meaning from what you already have in the article. And at its best, it can be argued that the change adds a depth of meaning and style.

Especially in the Early Life section and Early Career sections, a scan of the dates of the references shows that in many cases she was commenting on the events well after they happened. Thus these comments do not fall in the “as it happened” timeframe, and I would suggest that for these the present perfect is more appropriate.

Early Life:

“While Stone did not describe herself as a "tomboy", according to her, she was "loud" and "bossy" while growing up.” → “While Stone has not described…”
“Despite not liking school, she said: "I made sure I got all A's", citing her controlling nature as the reason.” → “Despite not liking school, she has said that she “made sure [she] got all A’s”.
Don’t change this one (because there is an explicit time marker here): “In a 2013 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Stone said that she suffered panic attacks while growing up…”
“Stone admitted that she was drawn to acting from the age of four.” → “Stone has admitted…”
“She recollected, "I went up for every single show on the Disney Channel…” “ → “She has recollected…”

2004-2008: Early career:

Stone called this experience "rock bottom" → “Stone has called…”
“On the experience of acting in her first film, Stone described it as "amazing …” “ → “Stone has described it as…”
“Stone, who describes herself as "a big smiler and laugher", admitted that she found the role difficult as the character's personality traits contrasted with her own.” → “…has admitted…” [You could also make “describes” consistent with the “herself as a tomboy” quote above. Make both either “describes” or “has described”. I think either would work.]

2009–11: Breakthrough

No instances to change here.

2012–present For this section, a lot of the interviews that you used happened at the same time as the events she commented on. Thus you could use the simple past here. However, if you do so, it would be nice to sometimes use explicit or implicit time markers (such as “at the time”, “that year”, “in an interview promoting the movie”, etc.) to reassure the reader that, yes, this comment is in the “as it happened” timeframe. (Another option would be to continue using the present perfect throughout, and maintain the two separate timeframes.) It looks like there are actually only a couple of instances to consider in this section:

“Stone felt that she had a responsibility to educate herself on Spider-Man, admitting that she had not read the comic book; she said: "my experience was with the Sam Raimi movies…”
“She further stated that she was only familiar with…”
This one I don’t think you need to change because it has an implicit time marker: “In an interview with Total Film, Stone explained that her character…”

Personal Life:

Great: “Stone has expressed her fondness for her profession” You currently use the present perfect here, and I think you would no doubt agree it is very natural. And “She has also named actress…” is present perfect and very natural as well. So I’m arguing you could extend some of that naturalness and stylistic coherency to other parts of the article by using the present perfect in those places too.
Basically, I think all the verb tenses in this section work well. And in the In the Media section too.

Note that I think you can keep the (critics’) reviews throughout the article in the simple past, because the context implies the review was made at the time the respective movie came out. Thus, these reviews become part of the main narrative/timeframe in the simple past. (This is not the choice I made in the Title TK article, as you noted—I put my reviews in the present, as I always do—but I think the simple past works here in the context of the narrative of the choices you made.

This is a quite long comment, but I hope it is clear. Let me know if there are any points that I did not explain well. Moisejp (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp: Many thanks for your exhaustive review. Let me know if you want me to implement further changes. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

I'll be making a start on this in the next day or so, but a first flick through shows that the three sections "Filmography", "Theater" and "Awards and nominations" have no sources at all, which will be a problem at FAC. More to come. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have used IMDb to source the section, which I know is not considered reliable, but in this case it simply lists (or should I say relists) the films she has appeared in. I think it is much more convenient to link one page than to repeat a bundle of sources in a section. I see that the same has been done to the Moore article. FrB.TG (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never a fan of IMDB. See if it can be covered by AFI and BFI references instead, which would be prefereable. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Sorry to be so slow getting here - I'm on a bit of a roll with Walt Disney, but I hope to be with you very soon. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. I am in no hurry. FrB.TG (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]