Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Amy Adams
Amy Adams[edit]
- This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.
The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 20, 2018 by Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
Amy Adams (born August 20, 1974) is an American actress. She made her feature film debut with a supporting part in the 1999 satire Drop Dead Gorgeous and her first major role was in Steven Spielberg's 2002 biopic Catch Me If You Can. Her breakthrough came in the part of a loquacious pregnant woman in Junebug (2005) and her first major success as a leading lady was the 2007 musical Enchanted, in which she played a cheerful Disney Princess. She went on to play naive, optimistic women in a series of films, following which she played stronger female parts to positive reviews in The Fighter (2010) and The Master (2012). In 2013 she began portraying Lois Lane in superhero films set in the DC Extended Universe. She won two consecutive Golden Globe Awards for playing a seductive con artist in American Hustle (2013) and Margaret Keane in Big Eyes (2014). Further acclaim came for playing a linguist in the science fiction film Arrival (2016) and a self-harming reporter in the miniseries Sharp Objects (2018). (Full article...)
- Most recent similar article(s): Lady Gaga (March 28)
- Main editors: Krimuk2.0
- Promoted: December 15, 2017
- Reasons for nomination: 44th birthday
- Support as nominator. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- This paragraph needs some attention:
- 'Stuart McGurk of GQ considers Adams' auburn hair, porcelain skin, upturned nose, and her soft, earnest speaking style to be among her trademarks.[6] She was named one of the most beautiful people in America by Elle in 2011, and several publications have featured her red carpet appearances in their listings of best-dressed celebrities.[165][166] Adams was made the face of Lacoste's fragrance named Eau de Lacoste in 2012, and two years later, she endorsed accessories and handbags of Max Mara.[167] In 2015, the actress collaborated with Max Mara to design and promote a line of handbags.[168]'
Some of the content (especially the first sentence) is unencyclopedic and it ends repetitively. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Dweller, could you elaborate on what's unencyclopedic about it? I'm surprised you'd call it so because nobody at the FAC brought it up. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think a slavering physical description of an actress belongs in an encyclopedia, especially as none of the aspects mentioned are particularly defining, unusual ("trademarks" for brown hair and fair skin is ridiculous) or relevant to acting. With the exception of the description of her voice. I've never read GQ, but I see from our article it's accused of being sexist. I'm not surprised. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Her auburn hair has, in fact, been described as quite impactful. Also, why is describing someone's physical features considered to be "slavering" and "sexist". For an actress who receives significant coverage for her looks and red-carpet appearances, a brief description (after tons and tons of information on her acting) of what a journalist considers to be her defining physical attributes is hardly unwarranted. Which is understandably why no one at the FAC accused this article of being sexist or unencyclopedic. It would have been considered unencyclopedic if I would have fawned on and on about her looks, but that's far from the case. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising our use of a line from GQ. I'm happy for you to disagree but I find it fanboyish. I'd expect an encyclopedia to discuss an actress' physical appearance if it was particularly distinctive. I'd guess (again, I've never read either) GQ and Elle might comment on what shoes she likes to wear or her holiday homes, but we shouldn't talk about that either. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've trimmed it to a mention of her hair and speaking style. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good on you. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've trimmed it to a mention of her hair and speaking style. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising our use of a line from GQ. I'm happy for you to disagree but I find it fanboyish. I'd expect an encyclopedia to discuss an actress' physical appearance if it was particularly distinctive. I'd guess (again, I've never read either) GQ and Elle might comment on what shoes she likes to wear or her holiday homes, but we shouldn't talk about that either. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Her auburn hair has, in fact, been described as quite impactful. Also, why is describing someone's physical features considered to be "slavering" and "sexist". For an actress who receives significant coverage for her looks and red-carpet appearances, a brief description (after tons and tons of information on her acting) of what a journalist considers to be her defining physical attributes is hardly unwarranted. Which is understandably why no one at the FAC accused this article of being sexist or unencyclopedic. It would have been considered unencyclopedic if I would have fawned on and on about her looks, but that's far from the case. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think a slavering physical description of an actress belongs in an encyclopedia, especially as none of the aspects mentioned are particularly defining, unusual ("trademarks" for brown hair and fair skin is ridiculous) or relevant to acting. With the exception of the description of her voice. I've never read GQ, but I see from our article it's accused of being sexist. I'm not surprised. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Dweller, could you elaborate on what's unencyclopedic about it? I'm surprised you'd call it so because nobody at the FAC brought it up. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)