Talk:Jennifer Lawrence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Katniss

Jennifer Lawrence is chosen to be Katniss from the Hunger Games, however, I'm not going to edit it myself because I don't have a wikipedia account. But just to let you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.57.2 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need an account to edit WP... 69.165.255.72 (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reads like PR Fluff.

This article reads like PR fluff,so I am going to change some of the unsourced praises.--74.179.215.67 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Block quote

Block quotes are famously used here on wikipedia for long reviews or personal quotes. There is nothing wrong with using block quotes. The review from Rolling Stone is lenghty and needs to be put in a block quote. Putting a block quote from a top critic does not make the page look like a fansite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishstar7 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with block quotes, but the quote itself is ridiculous. It's far too long and covers too much ground, like the film itself, the character, a Twilight comparison, and her previous Oscar nomination. We should decide on a phrase that actually focuses on Lawrence's performance, such as:

• "Lawrence reveals a physical and emotional grace that's astonishing. Give her the deed, because she owns this movie."
• "Lawrence, 21, is an acting dynamo with the skills to let us into Katniss' searching mind."
• "My advice is to keep your eyes on Lawrence, who turns the movie into a victory by presenting a heroine propelled by principle. She makes Katniss revolutionary."

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lamely written article

I'm too lazy to make a wikipedia account and edit this page, but it's terrible. For example, lines like 'The performance was highly acclaimed by film critics.' oh was it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.89.214 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was. That's why the very next line includes a quotation of superlative praise from one of the world's leading film critics, plus a reference. Problem? SteveStrummer (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding to this: Jennifer Lawrence is the second youngest actress to WIN an academy award for best actress. She is far from the second youngest to be nominated for best actress. The youngest to be nominated for best actress is Quvanzhane Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild (9), the SECOND YOUNGEST TO BE NOMINATED FOR BEST ACTRESS is Keisha Castle Hughes for Whale Rider. Keisha was 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.136.217 (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Jennifer Lawrence is the second youngest actress to be nominated for an Academy Award??? Really??? What about Anna Paquin and Tatum O'Neal? Good grief they were both winning children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.80.160 (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This still appears in the lead. I think it should be sourced...83.134.6.121 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

She is not the second-youngest Oscar-nominated actress, as the OP pointed out, but she is the second-youngest nominee in the Best Actress category. Feel free to add a source. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Now third-youngest since Quvenzhané Wallis in 2013, see full list. I've updated the page

Paulatthehug (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

She is the second youngest to win a best actress oscar, but she's not the second youngest to be nominated for best actress: that's Keisha Castle Hughes who was 13 when nominated for Whale Rider. First youngest is Quvanzhane Wallis who was 9. No source needs to be cited, this is common knowledge to any movie lover over the age of 25. If you DO need a source just look up any superlatives article about the Academy Awards. As a personal note I can't believe how snotty you are about this fact and so unwilling to take criticism for something that's so obviously a mistake that it's laughable.

I'm sorry but this is the most horribly written article I've ever seen on Wikipedia with so many mistakes it's unreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.136.217 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life / Early Life

I added a couple of lines, that were fact and were sourced, and for some reason they were taken out within hours by an unregistered user. I'm sure if i'll add them again they will just be taken out again. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anibar E (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An "average 3.9" in high school is meaningless to anyone outside the US. I've no idea if this is good, bad or indifferent! Maccheek (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Action Film

Is The Hunger Games (film) really an action movie? Its listed on the page as a Sci-Fi Action Drama, and I would consider it much more of a drama than action (especially the first two acts, which have absolutely no 'action' at all). I bring this up because it says she is the highest earning action heroine of all time, but I question how valid that assertion is. Maybe that's not how these things work, but I would dispute that classification. Superbowlbound (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo, CNN, and Detroit News said she's the highest grossing action heroine right now.

Hunger Games reviews

While I think it's good to expand about The Hunger Games by adding the box-office and reviews about Lawrence's performance, I don't think it's good to add so many reviews. Either summarize them or keep the most important ones... --83.134.6.121 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have trimmed down the glowing praise a bit. Hope this helps. Elizium23 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Watch out for the 68.* IP though, as I am fairly sure it is going to undo that edit of yours. I have tried to trim the article before, but the 68.* IP readded it immediately without discussion. Nymf _hideliho! 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"It has a shining star in Jennifer Lawrence, who gives us a female warrior worth cheering...Lawrence reveals a physical and emotional grace that's astonishing. Give her the deed, because she owns this movie. It's not just that Katniss makes Twilight's Bella Swan look like the wimp she is, it's that Lawrence, 21, is an acting dynamo with the skills to let us into Katniss' searching mind. Last year, Lawrence won an Oscar nomination for playing an Ozark girl in Winter's Bone. She's just as affecting this time, lending primal force to this dystopian fable of a society out of sync with human values. My advice is to keep your eyes on Lawrence, who turns the movie into a victory by presenting a heroine propelled by principle. She makes Katniss revolutionary. May the odds be ever in her favor."

—Peter Travers from Rolling Stone on Lawrence's performance in The Hunger Games (2012)

Why would you take these reviews out? Other wiki pages have quote boxes and reviews too and these are top critic reviews.

Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune called Lawrence a "spectacularly talented young actress" and praised her for capturing "a young woman's fear and resolve, often non-verbally, well... this is a considerable talent well on her way to a great career".

Ann Hornaday from The Washington Post praised Lawrence for playing Katniss as the "eagle eyed heroine" and for "combining the unapologetic aggression of Artemis with the girlier wish-fulfillment fantasies of a bemused Cinderella."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.45.237 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 April 2012

Please see the objections above. See also WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV for why biased reviews such as this should be kept to a minimum. This article is not PR fluff, it is an encyclopedic biography. Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

While the the other reviews are biased, this quote by Rolling Stone deserves to be on her page because it's been aired on TV.--149.68.164.113 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote is too long and should be cut down to this: ""It has a shining star in Jennifer Lawrence, who gives us a female warrior worth cheering...Lawrence reveals a physical and emotional grace that's astonishing. Give her the deed, because she owns this movie...Lawrence, 21, is an acting dynamo with the skills to let us into Katniss' searching mind. Last year, Lawrence won an Oscar nomination for playing an Ozark girl in Winter's Bone. She's just as affecting this time, lending primal force to this dystopian fable of a society out of sync with human values. My advice is to keep your eyes on Lawrence, who turns the movie into a victory by presenting a heroine propelled by principle. She makes Katniss revolutionary. May the odds be ever in her favor."--Bluescarred (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hunger Games Second Movie

I heard that there is going to be a second movie for The Hunger Games series. It's going to be called Catching Fire. Shouldn't that be added to the filmography section too? CPGirlAJ (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article body with a citation, and it cannot be included in her filmography yet, as it is not yet in production. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, we do not add future films to filmographies. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hunger Games Soundtrack

Jennifer Lawrence sings in "Rue's Lullaby" which is in the Hunger Games soundtrack. I was wondering if that should be added on her page? http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/08/17/hunger-games-soundtrack-jennifer-lawrence/ --68.197.45.237 (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

Is there any information about her ancestry? There's something peculiar about the shape of her eyes, notably her eyelids, which makes me wonder if she has more or less distant Asian ancestry. Or Sami? Granted, this is a superfluous question, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Her eyes are so bright I'm almost compelled to stare at them ;). I'm wondering if I'm the only one to be intrigued by that.--Munin75 (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Like her fellow Kentuckian co-star, Josh Hutcherson, Jennifer Lawrence is a mix of mostly British Isles with some fractions of German - though she is more heavily German than he is (this is a fairly standard Kentucky combination). Her paternal grandparents were David Vernon Lawrence and Doris Shrader. David Vernon Lawrence, a high school basketball player, is pictured here - also some info there on his basketball stats (much of his ancestry is documented here). Her paternal grandmother's obituary is here, among other places, and also includes a genealogy of her parents (William M. Shrader and Reva Mae Adams). Jennifer Lawrence's maternal grandparents are Charles Koch and Carolyn Mongtomery. There's an article about them here. Carolyn Montgomery's parents were Robert C. Montgomery and Esta White, both of whom were from Indiana, as were their parents. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is self-evidently false or WP:SYNTH/WP:OR in nature and should be deleted. The question was if she was not white and you answer with unvalidated claims about her ancestors, what their national origins had been, the validity or portion of those national origins (for which no evidence is provided or could be at this point), false claims of unclear or nonexistent ethnic groups, and avoid the answer that she is Aryan or Nordic. The claims about "most" "mix" of this or that, how common that is, what this implies, and the citation of inherently false, deceptive or unreliable sources would be a problem for some BLP articles and not others. We should consistently say "race" is nonsense, claimed genealogies are not reliable or should not be phrased as whose parents were whose but whose parents are allegedly whose, and what nations they allegedly resided in, and what portions of their backgrounds were in turn from what "ethnic groups" or "national origins". Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 14:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly a discussion asking for more information on her ancestry, not a unequivocal declaration, and it is not included in the actual article, only in this discussion. Including anything in the article requires reliable sourcing, and since this doesn't seem to breach WP:BLP (it isn't saying anything particularly negative), the only thing you *might* say it violates is WP:FORUM, which is also discussed at the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines page. Given the Talk Page Guidelines, we would potentially just end the discussion *if* it isn't in keeping with the goal of this talk page, but it wouldn't get deleted typically. -- Avanu (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What a strange reply that first one is. There's nothing wrong with a little genealogy. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bizarre discussion. The fact that she is from a region where many people can trace their ancestry back to British Isles and Northern Europe is indisputable. However, the variety of facial and ethnic features from those areas can be pretty wide. Parts of the British Isles were populated by Sami, some by Scandiavians (Swedish, Norwegian) as well as other ethno-cultural groups. The facial features, different hair/eye colours across the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic regions vary a lot (not all Celts are red-haired). Likewise, Germany is a big place, with a long history of ethnic mixing, including Slavs, Balts etc. Her "Asian" eyes might be Slavic-German. Doesn't mean her ancestry isn't from Germany (188.146.17.192 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC))

Catching Fire

"Catching Fire (2013) [The Sequel To The Hunger Games]" Should be added in her filmography because she is filming it this summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divazzy (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article body with a citation, and it cannot be included in her filmography yet, as it is not yet in production. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, we do not add future films to filmographies. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Imdb a good source? I knew I forgot something (the ciatation); last I checked, it updated the information about catching fire, listing it in pre-production. It also lists The Falling in post-production. Ligress06 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:RS/IMDb), but for an informal check of whether a film is in production yet, it is the best source I know of. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-production is not yet in production. Per comments above and the hidden comment in the filmography, please do not add films that are not yet in production. Elizium23 (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Ligress06 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure WP:CRYSTAL applies in this situation? Normally, I wouldn't question it, but The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is now listed (so far unopposed) at Woody Harrelson, Liam Hemsworth, and Josh Hutcherson. And I've seen it done on countless other actors' and actresses' filmographies in the past. Either way, WP:NFF is about notability guidelines for films, which determine whether or not a film can have its own article, not whether or not they can be listed in filmographies. It's completely unrelated, so I'm taking mention of it out of the hidden text so as not to mislead anybody. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The practice is documented by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_6#Filmography - When to Add and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_7#Films_in_the_future. I suppose there is not a clear consensus as I had assumed. The reason I cite WP:NFF is because this governs at what point in its lifetime a film should have its own article and therefore meets the requirements of being included in the filmography. As a list, the filmography should generally consist of notable entries with their own articles. This has been my general practice in all actor articles which I take care of, and has never been challenged before, so it would seem I had a consensus by silence; if you want to get more opinions on this, I suggest we take the conversation back to WT:ACTOR. Elizium23 (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's not a highly contentious thing, I'm content to let it be. To be honest, it's always looked a little cruft-y to me when a large number of future films are listed in a filmography, and I only asked because I thought it was established procedure to do so. I prefer not to do it, myself, and as long as you have a rough consensus for it, I'd say we can leave it alone. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. It's not so much contentious as it is a constant source of fandalism that needs to be kept in check. As you can see, the male actors' articles are apparently not watched as vigilantly as the attractive females'. This is probably due in part to the demographics of Wikipedia editors. In the articles I take care of, I see a constant stream of updates with films that are in pre-production or rumored, and with the high-profile cases such as Emma Stone in Spider-Man and this one here, adding a hidden comment is the only way to get the anon-IPs under control. And sometimes, they don't even read the comment and add it anyway - c'est la vie. I am dismayed that it doesn't enjoy a solid consensus - I was fooling myself thinking that it did - but to me, it is an extremely reasonable guideline. You can say whatever you want about upcoming projects in the body of text as long as you cite a source, so it's not like we are content Nazis, obliterating every mention of future films, we just want to keep the filmographies a clean and factual record of the actual work the actor has done. If production hasn't started, she hasn't done any work yet anyway! So once again, I thank you for your concern and have a good day. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject, although the IMDb may not be considered a reliable source, production of Catching Fire was announced some time ago and covered in various entertainment media, so one doesn't actually need the IMDb as a source; just look for Variety or Entertainment Weekly. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute WP:RS regarding any statements of heritage

I'm raising the issue here because it came up previously on this talk page but it applies to many articles. In light of the above discussion making claims this person is British, and since other editors have strongly refused to remove such discussions under the premise that they are appropriate on the BLP talk page, I have concerns about statements about heritage or lineage in WP:BLP articles. Mainstream genetics and anthropology would claim that these are WP:VERIFIABLE statements, so sources which have not met those standards are perhaps WP:FRINGE or making statements outside their field of knowledge which intrinsically impugns their reliability. Especially paternal lineage (without in any way intending to be disrespectful to any persons mentioned in this article) is not readily verified without genetic testing. The logic used here is like laws regarding paternity before genetic testing, that the legal spouse of the mother must be the father. This also applies to descriptions of ethnic background, which normally are not going to raise much disagreement, but at times it becomes absurd. Also I have a question of why some people are called Anglo-Irish or African-American and other times merely "American" and when the distinction is being made. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be making a general point about WP:BLP's. If so, the discussion would perhaps be better suited to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons so policy could be discussed and revised if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Height

According to her profile on IMDB, she is 175cm tall - 5' 9" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattito (talk • contribs) 12:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Public persona

One aspect of Lawrence's career that's gotten some attention is her reputation for being unusually candid and (unintentionally) comic in her interviews. Case in point being her March 2012 interview with David Letterman that made headlines due to her referring to herself as a "troll" and going into detail about how she was bullied as a child. Most indications are that this is seen as an endearing quality rather than a negative, so if sources can be found to satisfy WP:BLP (my examples are taken from a nationally broadcast interview that was covered in media, for example), I think it's worth adding to the article. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

weird photo

current leading photo is such a weird-looking shot of her with too much makeup and an awkward/fake smile, she looks like a puffnstuff character.(she is so much more beautiful than that photo shows.) can't we get a better one? or replace it with one of the others already in the article, at least. 24.99.29.83 (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that she is very attractive, and that photo is not especially flattering; however, it does appear to be the best photo we have of her, in terms of an identifying photograph (i.e. it is a head shot of her looking directly into the camera). You could, though, keep an eye on commons:Category:Jennifer Lawrence; perhaps someone will upload a better photograph, soon.  Chickenmonkey  10:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The likelihood of someone uploading a better photograph, soon, is fairly high, considering the fact that we are very close to awards season, and Jennifer Lawrence is very likely to be attending several awards ceremonies.  Chickenmonkey  10:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that is a weirdly bad photo alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.170.45 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Factual Error: Supporting Documentation Attached

Hi there, I work for AskMen which is cited in Jennifer Lawrence's profile and currently incorrectly cites the name of the feature in which she featured in December 2012. It currently reads “She ranked #1 on AskMen's list of Top 99 Women for 2013.[29]” but should read “She ranked #1 on AskMen's list of Top 99 Most Desirable Women for 2013”. That is the official title of the world renown feature which is now in its 12th year and surveyed over 2.4 million men worldwide. Please find supporting documentation below. AskMen's "Top 99 Most Desirable Women of 2013" also inspired the current cover of Vanity Fair which features Jennifer Lawrence with a headline that reads "One Million Men Say Jennifer Lawrence Is The World's 'Most Desirable Woman'!" not "Top 99 Women.". I'd like to see how this information can be amended. Thank you!

Official Release: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/idUS133363+11-Dec-2012+PRN20121211

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/news/ni42604973/

Reuters: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/people-desirablewomen-jennifer-lawrence-idINDEE8BA0B320121211

Yahoo: http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/aline/jennifer-lawrence-rises-while-kim-kardashian-falls-askmen-154254593.html

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/jennifer-lawrence-most-desirable-woman-2013-askmen-list_n_2277365.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenzaEditQueen (talk • contribs) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the notification. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Birth name

Wiki policy as explained at WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY says don't use public records for personal info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Acting is crazy!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Jennifer Lawrence took the honors at the awards People's Choice Award. The film "Hunger Games," in which she plays the lead role won five awards, including best actress. "I never imagined," said Jennifer for Vanity Fair, February and explained that she was "just acting and not saving lives as a doctor, or a fireman," and added that "the act's complete nonsense." Some have commented that this statement by the actress wanted to provoke members of the Academy to pay attention to her. And that worked. She was nominated for an Oscar.78.3.221.243 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Falling" should be changed to "Serena"

Under Jennifer Lawrence's Filmography -> Film, "The Falling" should be changed to "Serena", which is the actual title of the movie. Below are sources which can be cited for this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1247690/ http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/bradley-cooper-on-working-with-jennifer-lawrence-getting-sober/

Nrorufo (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013

After winning the golden globe for “Silver Linings Playbook”, Jennifer appeared on Saturday Night Live (SNL) where in her opening monolog had this to say about her two brother brothers: "My whole life they have tormented me and beat me up and taken my things, so when I won I could not wait to rub it in their faces. And as soon as I did they beat me up and took my golden globe." LaurenNicole13 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Jennifer Lawrence has been confirmed for Days of Future Past.

Source: https://twitter.com/BryanSinger/status/273507047646064642, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.30.121 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but we'd be looking for a reliable secondary source such as a news article about this instead of someone's Tweet. Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Falling

The title of this film is, according to IMDB, "Serena", not "The Falling". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.232.15 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrible photo

Awful photo. Bad lighting, bad make up, 2 fuglies in the background on their phones. Quite possibly the worst photo on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.70.62 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Why should it be preferred to her 83rd Academy Awards picture which is only a year older? I suggest we swap them and demote the ugly picture to further down in the article. But I don't envision completely getting rid of it. It seems to be the most recent and as a young actress, she changes her style frequently and we should keep up-to-date. But at Wikipedia we are reliant on photographers who freely license their work in a compatible way with our policies here, so it is in our best interests to reach out and seek superior material that can be used here, rather than just complaining about what we already have. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I visited her article for the first time, saw the awkward photo in the infobox, and checked the talk page to see if anyone had mentioned it; sure enough. I've swapped the photos. You've made an important point above, I always try to use whichever photo depicts the person in a more recognizable appearance, which I think the new one does. It's also an excellent photo. Scarce2 (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just came across File:Jennifer Lawrence 2, 2013.jpg, I think this one depicts her even better. I guess it's my opinion, though. Anyone is obviously free to take issue with it. Scarce2 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a terrible photo too. The angle is bad. She looks gorgeous in this image File:JLawrence.png --Trishstar7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That image has no metadata, which is usually an indication that it's a copyrighted photo that was copied from another site that had copied it from somewhere else. It also has a very low resolution and is nominated for deletion. The white balance is a little off but I would still agree it is an excellent photo. There's very few freely-licensed images of her as of now, but I think out of the ones we have, the most recent one (January 2013) is also the best one, as she is very easily identifiable in it. Scarce2 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The current one is fine, but I think effort should be put into finding one from the 85th Academy Awards because, well, her Oscars look >>>> her GG look. 82.40.232.15 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The present photo File:Jennifer_Lawrence_2,_2012.jpg is still extremely unflattering. Is this poor woman cursed to never have a decent pic attached to her WP article? --Ef80 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Web

Is this her own website? 113.22.84.65 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to believe that. It explicitly labels itself as the "oldest fansite" and makes no claim of being official. Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2013

| caption = Lawrence at the 70th Golden Globes Awards in January 2013 Nutthawat (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Years active

The Devil You Know was filmed in late 2005, which means the 'Years active' section should say 2005-present, not 2006-present. Right? I mean, she filmed a movie in 2005, that means that she was active as an actress in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.86.173 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox comedian awards

I concur with the removal of this template from the article. It is nonsensical to add such a box, because Lawrence is not a comedienne, nor did she win the awards cited even as a comedy actress, they are dramas. It certainly does not belong in the infobox, which is intended for concise summary of a career, not an exhaustive listing of everything she's ever done, and the awards section will only grow for this young actress. We already have a separate article, List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence, so please keep awards there; summarize them in the BLP article, but not in the infobox. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We are on our way to forming a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Awards in infobox, but it has been a month since it was last discussed, so anyone (support or oppose) is free to join in and maybe we can finish the discussion. Nymf _{talk to me} 18:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

With the recent spate of blind reverting by an editor, I am trying to build consensus on whether a list of awards is really necessary in the infobox. In my opinion, it is not required as the information is already present in the lead. Comments from other editors will be much appreciated. Thank you. --smarojit ^HD 07:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You have already lost all credibility with your first sentence. This isn't a place for children. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

CloudKade11, see WP:NPA. And for your information, there are currently 3 editors on this talk page who says that it does not belong in this article, and then there's you edit warring to keep it in. I think you should rethink what you are doing here. Nymf _{talk to me} 17:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Those unnecessary details aren't needed in the infobox. Take a look at the articles of the other big name actors or actresses. They don't have a part like this in their infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 07:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

The link for her official website is incorrect. It is a link for a fansite purporting to be her own. It should be removed.

109.255.128.143 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure. Lawrence's official, verified Facebook page has a link to the site - http://jenniferslawrence.com/ - do you have a record of some denial by Jennifer Lawrence that it is not her official site? Elizium23 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

Personal life

Lawrence lived in New York City for the first few years of her career, but now resides in Santa Monica, California.[10] She dated British actor and X-Men: First Class co-star Nicholas Hoult from 2011 to 2013.[51] Regarding her personal life, Lawrence has stated, "You don't want your relationship to be in the press, but at the same time, and this is only a theory, the more you try and keep it secret, the more the media tries to crack it open."[52] However, they appear to have rekindled their romance shortly after they began to film X-men: Days of Future Past.Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult Back Together Channai38 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia doesn't add speculation to articles. Please wait until one confirms the relationship. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

Please take out the last revision. The talk of them getting back together is only speculation and not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.246.64 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical Correction

I would like to suggest a grammatical correction, under Personal Life. Currently the text reads: "Jennifer has stated that she had a difficult childhood because she had problems with anxiety and hyperactivity for which she went to therapy and received medication. This issues seemed to fade away when she began acting." I believe the last sentence should be changed to, "These issues seemed to fade away when she began acting." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.68.255 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request September 7, 2013

Please provide the following reference footnote to document the sentence in the second paragraph under the section "2010–12: Breakthrough" regarding "The following year, it was announced that Lawrence was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences." The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. June 17, 2011 Press Release:"Academy Invites 178 to Membership.". Retrieved September 7, 2013.

Also, please correct grammar in the second sentence, under "Personal Life." It current is written "This issues seemed to fade away when she began acting." It should be corrected to "These issues seemed to fade away...."

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.68.255 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have fully protected this page owing to the edit warring and will be watchlisting. Please discuss the issue on the talk page and reach a consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

What's the point of having this WP:DISINFOBOX in place? -- Cassianto^Talk 18:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Same reason why most of our BLP's have infoboxes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

and what's that? Do tell, because at the moment you have no reason to keep it. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And you have no policy or guideline that tells you to remove it. Nymf (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DISINFOBOX. Everything within it can be found in the first line of the lead section. That makes it repetitive. I have no problem if you want to extend the box and turn it into something which actually serves a purpose, but at the moment it doesn't. Please remember '"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.'" For further guidence please see WP:INFOBOXUSE. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay, not a policy or guideline. You cannot enforce edits based on essays. You quote WP:INFOBOXUSE, saying that the use of an infobox is determined through consensus amongst editors. Right now the consensus is to include it, through WP:EDITCONSENSUS as it has been there for 6 years without being disputed. Nymf (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing it being there, please keep up. I am disputing its current form. It has no information in it! Secondly, essays are good enough for me, as they help shape a good article. As per my university days, If an essay advises something, I am inclined to follow it; they are not written to be ignored they are written to help editors and this "essay" is designed to help people build good (if there is such a thing) infoboxes. Granted this isn't a good article, but it could be one day. The second guideline is from MOS which can not be disputed. I had no idea we were entering into a consensus vote now; is that because you currently have the status quo? -- Cassianto^Talk 09:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your buddy, ‎SchroCat, who reverted my edit for you, is the one that brought up the word consensus (which currently stands to include the infobox). Since you are so keen on essays, why not follow the advice at WP:DCBU? 11:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nymf, I did not revert your edit for anyone, so please drop the attitude and stick to the substantive points. Posting comments like that is hardly conducive to achieving a sensible discussion, so stick to the matter in hand please. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost as strange as your "buddy" NeilN coming to your rescue initially eh!? That too is a groundless accusation (which you seem to like). Thanks for the DCBU "essay" which I'm sure you'll accept is nonsensical inasmuch it works on the presumption that a lot of information is already there (see the example in that "essay"), but is not being used correctly. The Lawrence DISINFOBOX is neither complete nor being used correctly, making it a DISINFOBOX of all proportions. I didn't want this to turn into a battle of uncivil wits, just for either an extension of the box using what is there, giving some key points within the body, or remove it completely. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I reverted was your seeming lack of understanding of WP:BRD. It's BRD, not BRRD. SchroCat's action, in my opinion, was incorrect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the box as it stands is of no use to anyone. It should, IMO, be deleted. 81.178.192.188 (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Much better without it!! I started the WP:Actors project incidentally and used to support the old infobox actors with gold for living and silver for dead actors but since they'e been merged into infobox person they look damn ugly IMO and I think it looks better without them. UNless they have a lot of data like sportspeople etc then I think they're pretty useless. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it looks better with the box, but of course, that's just my opinion. I thought it should exist for a summary of her age, place of birth, occupation, career span, etc. The question is - would this pass as a FA without an infobox? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The existance or otherwise of an infobox has no effect on the FA process. Lots of articles go through without needing them, or without them being requested. There's many more steps - and more vtal ones too - that would need to be taken to get this close to even GA standard before it gets a sniff of FA. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Lugnuts. Yes of course the article would pass FA without having an infobox. See here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here, not to mention the many more listed at WP:FA. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done Sinden. Despite a polite request on your talk page, you decided to continue edit warring. Brilliant: that's really helped out the situation entirely hasn't it. Perhaps you could now grow up, act like an adult and join in the conversation? - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Umm, read WP:BRD. The BOLD part of the cycle is the removal of the infobox. Until consensus is reached, it should remain in the stable state. That's the REVERT part. You failed to follow the cycle by incorrectly undoing User:NeilN's REVERT. If there is any edit warring going on here, it is from yourself and User:Cassianto. Follow the process. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And your definition of "polite" differs somewhat from mine. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment First of all the infobox has been there for years, so it's not going to hurt the article if it remains throughout the discussion. Also, its presence will aid editors to evaluate its usefulness. On whether it remains or not, I support its removal since it doesn't really add anything to the article. All it really tells us is that Lawrence is a 23 year old American actress and we get that information in the first two sentences of the lede. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As this issue seems to boil down to one's personal preference, I'm with Lugnuts on this one. My eye naturally targets the picture when the article loads and then drifts downwards to get a very high level summary of the bio. I get her age (with no mental calculation), nationality, occupation, and when she started her career with little effort. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I agree that this infobox adds nothing to the article. I would delete it as redundant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox disputes all across the website are really becoming a pain in the arse!! They're not important! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete: I agree. They add nothing new, and look ugly... Don't really see a point for further discussion. --smarojit ^HD 16:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@NeilN: Everything can be found in the top line of the lede. Are you seriously suggesting that because the information is not on the right hand side of the page, then readers are inclined to click away with a confused look on their faces? Of course not, they will read the first few lines of the lede. Also, those going out to find her article on WP will already know that she is an actress. Those not knowing she is an actress will not be searching for her on WP. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes are AS important as the content of the article itself, not everyone comes to wikipedia to read the WHOLE biography of an actor, some just come to find their d.o.b, place of birth, sometimes their marriage status and if they have a picture, what they look like....I wish we improved the infoboxes more so that it allowed the inclusion of MAJOR awards and titles won by certain celebrities.. I have no idea how many Oscars say Al Pacino won and its actually much easier for me to find that information on IMDb (Pro) than wikipedia..since i can remember, everyone has been trying to make the infobox as useless as it can get, they first removed the "colour coding" from the infoboxes, then removed a lot of sections and now they are trying to get rid of it all together..seriously? The french language version of Jennifer Lawrence is much more desirable than the english version...--Stemoc (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think infoboxes play a vital role in some biographical articles, for example at Roger Federer. There, the infobox complements the lede; you get a huge amount of facts and stats that are contextualised by the lede but that clearly isn't the case here. They have a place on Wikipedia, but appealing to lazy readers is possibly the weakest argument for doing anything on Wikipedia. From that stance you could justify taking a well-written in-depth article and hacking it down to a more consumable length for lazy readers. There are good reasons for the Federer infobox, and good reasons have led to a good infobox. Adding an infobox for bad reasons gets us the sort of infobox we have here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Stemoc: So do you admit that the Lawrence infobox is useless in it's current form? Whoever added that made it useless by repeating exactly what could be found in the opening line of the lede. There isn't a single piece of information in that box that couldn't be found in the opening lines of the lede. A picture can easily be seen without an infobox; in most cases, an infobox lessens the quality of the image by forcing it to a reduced size. Lastly (and with the upmost respect), your claim regarding the importance of an infobox being equal to that of the article itself is bullshite. We may as well do away with the article altogether then and just have an infobox. Is that what you're saying? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe all this should be taken to the talk page of Template:Infobox actor for a broader discussion...implementing changes to a template that may affect thousands of articles needs to be discussed with a bigger community/audience...nd NO, I don't think infoboxes should be removed, I think they need to be "upgraded" just like the sites, wiki software...The infobox section should be as helpful as the article itself..currently I do not see a problem with the infobox, its as useful as it suppose to be because we should remember than 90% of people who have this infobox are virtually unknown to most..we know JLaw because she recently won an oscar, how famous is say someone like Julianna Margulies? The info on her infobox tells us that she is married and has a child, we do not not find that info on her "lede" (what is this?), we have to scroll down to her "personal life" to find that....as i was saying, for different stars, and infobox is utmost importance, its just that for the "very" famous "unmarried" stars, it may seem redundant, but its not....As i said, it needs to be upgraded, more options needs to be added such as infoboxes for track atheletes like Usain Bolt...--Stemoc (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A "lede" is another, more shorter name for a lead section (see WP:LEAD), and frankly I'm flabbergasted you didn't know that!? Anyway, I am not asking for the box to be removed so I don't think this discussion should be moved elsewhere. I am asking for it to either be extended or removed as it is currently a DISINFOBOX. It's not difficult to understand, but it seems people are confused by this request. If you guys are such lovers of infoboxes, then surely you would want to make them as "interesting" and " important" as possible, so extend it or lose it. Incidentally, who gives a toss about whether someone is married or not? Who gives a toss if they have a child? Why should those two very, very unimportant and uninteresting facts be one of the first things a reader sees? Why, if the boxes are so damn important, do we have featured articles that currently have no infoboxes; articles I might add which "[have] been identified as [some] of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."? I don't mind infoboxes on sports, science, geography, and film related articles; in fact, they can be very helpful. But on film and theatre biographies they simply don't work. They offer repetitive and redundant information, force the image to a restrictive size, look ugly beyond belief, and pander to the laziest form of reader. To fill up space and because of POV infobox attitudes, we start listing uninteresting facts about the subject. Who they were related to; who they married; what there favourite colour is; what there favourite holiday destination is and so on and so on. I would request that you or someone extends this infobox by adding *key* facts about this persons life in order to solve this discussion. I won't be, as I refuse to add to or maintain biographical Infoboxes. If not, and bearing in mind the consensus here is to not have one, I will delete it again. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A lot of assertions and opinions (and some arrogance - you may not give a toss, but others might), none of it rooted in policy. I also take issue with you and Betty mentioning "lazy" readers. Wikipedia articles are not reading comprehension tests. They are sources of information. If someone quickly gets the information they want from skimming the infobox we shouldn't care. And Stemoc is right ("I am not asking for the box to be removed", "I will delete it again" - huh?). You seem to be saying that all basic infoboxes should be removed so this needs a wider discussion as tens of thousands of articles would be affected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you could please avoid insulting others by calling them arrogant, you may find them more amenable to accepting your arguments. Please let's not go down the pathway of uncivil communication. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not call Cassianto arrogant; I opined what he wrote contained some arrogance. Better, I think, than calling people children and telling them to grow up. [1], [2], [3], [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done for moving on and not trying to widen the argument. Good work there and one that's sure to keep the conversation focussed on the substantive issues at hand. Could you now please try and keep to the main points and stop picking fights with people? - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"A lot of assertions and opinions (and some arrogance)" -- what works for me works for Stemoc too then, as his post was also full of "assertions and opinions (and some arrogance)." How can you say "we shouldn't care"? Of course we care, that's why we are here isn't it?? I am getting a little sick and tired of people drawing there own interpretations on what I am saying. Please do try and understand I am not requesting blanket removal of all infoboxes, just pointless DISINFOBOXES such as the Lawrence one, until such a time that they offer something tangible and (semi) interesting . What ever happened to sandboxes? Why can't you build your boxes there and move across when complete? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"...I am not requesting blanket removal of all infoboxes, just pointless DISINFOBOXES such as the Lawrence one..." How many articles do you think this is going to affect? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A hell of a lot and frankly I'm not bothered either! Unfortunately WP seems to be full of them and we really need to either extend or delete. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

And this is why calls for a broader discussion are being made. Or do you want to have this argument on the talk page of every potentially affected article? Beverly Aadland, Angela Aames, Caroline Aaron, Diahnne_Abbott (these are the first four out of five articles in the American film actresses cat which have infoboxes). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Or do you want to have this argument on the talk page of every potentially affected article?" -- What do you think? Really, do you have to be so argumentative? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, if community consensus is that we should not have infoboxes in film biographies unless they contain certain material, I'll help with removing them. So why not assist with forming this consensus by explaining what "tangible and (semi) interesting" data you'd like to see? Otherwise you'll likely come up against the same resistance on other articles as you have here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That is precisely my point: There is nothing tangible or interesting that goes into film and theatre biography infoboxes. Other than a date of birth, death, other names, and notable films or stage productions (which can all be given in the first para of the lede sorry, lead section) there isn't anything else you could have in one. Ideally, I don't want any data in them because I would like to see them banned from such biographies altogether, but I realise that is not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, a discussion should take place to see what information should be added and all DISINFOBOXES should be ripped out and added back once they offer some purpose. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What constitutes a release for filmography purposes?

As long as we're bringing up site-wide issues in the context of a single popular article, I've had a question in my mind for some time that has relevance for Lawrence's filmography and future ones for other actors. Early in her career, Lawrence appeared in a movie called The Devil You Know, which wasn't released at the time. IIRC, film project guidelines require a film to be released or in production to appear in a filmography. Well, it turns out the movie was released on video on demand earlier this year.[5][6] WP:NFF implies that both theater and video releases count as public releases, but is unclear on whether VOD counts as a video release like straight-to-DVD would, and doesn't provide specific guidance for filmographies. This strikes me as a gray area in our guidelines, and there are probably other VOD-only releases that I haven't heard of which feature notable actors. As a neutral observer for film-related articles, I want to know if anyone has any opinions on whether or not VOD releases like The Devil You Know belong in actors' filmographies. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would treat VoD the same way we treat video. It's the same concept at the end of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

She's not with Hoult. None of the reports are anything more than speculation. Please remove. 98.197.18.32 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. They don't read as speculation. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

They are speculation since neither of them have confirmed the reconciliation. You could find a "Source" that says they were kidnapped by aliens, but that doesn't make it true. Lawrence has not acknowledged that they are together, so this site shouldn't rely on idle gossip and sensationalism. I may not have a source, but the pro-back together people have no leg to stand on.

Besides, the possible vandalism has nothing to do with this portion of the article. Unlock it please. What could they possibly vandalize that others like me wouldn't find and fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, December 2, 2013

The opening sentence of the introductory paragraph should say "Jennifer Lawrence is an Academy Award-winning actress." The current first sentence does not justly encapsulate the scope of her accomplishments. Furthermore, other Academy Award-winning actors and actresses are referred to this way in the opening sentences of their respective pages, so this adjustment should be made for the sake of continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.240.221 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I went and checked the last ten Academy Award-winning actress articles and none of them have Academy Award in the first sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Mother's last name

Let's resolve the small dispute over Lawrence's mother's last name. Could both parties present their reasons here for their changes? I think that would be the wisest course of action. Are there any sources to back up either side's edits? This shouldn't be difficult to sort out and move on from. :) Acalamari 22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing to it that many women don't go by their husbands' last names, we can't automatically assume Karen goes by "Lawrence" rather than "Koch" with the only basis being her marriage to Gary. After all, there is the common phrase "when you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me". Adding "née" is not really needed because it's more concise to just list her as "Karen Koch" than "Karen (née Koch)". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply, a google search of "Jennifer Lawrence's parents returns these results. Karen uses the "Lawrence" last name, so writing "Karen Koch" implies that she does not use the last name. Gloss • talk 23:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

While she may refer to herself by the "Lawrence" last name, it helps to have her maiden name if known. Otherwise, it looks like she was born as the same last name as her husband, like how Eleanor Roosevelt was born with the same last name as her husband Franklin D. Roosevelt. In conversation, I'm sure they'd be referred to as "Gary and Karen Lawrence". On official records such as Jennifer's birth certificate, though, they would probably be listed as "Gary Lawrence and Karen Koch" rather than "Gary Lawrence and Karen Lawrence". If maiden name is unknown, then it would be best to list as, for example, "John and Jerusha Stewart". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It does help to have the maiden name, but since she no longer goes by the name "Koch," (née Koch) specifically implies that it is her maiden name. So we don't have to write Gary and Karen Lawrence. My personal preference would be to remove the last names completely, all that matters is their first names. But another editor put " (née Koch) " back after I had taken it out. So I guess it's felt that including her last name is important, but then we need to be specific that Koch is her maiden name. Your claim that it "looks like she was born as the same last name as her husband" isn't practical - I'd be willing to bet that you're the only person who would think that way. Gloss • talk 06:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I meant to put "could" for the "looks like" portion, my bad. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2013

Under the "Career 2013-Present" section, the paragraph regarding her performance in American Hustle should be updated to include the critical praise she has received in addition to her nominations for a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award as both are highly significant honors that are reflective of Lawrence's continued success. Adamf1995 (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. It will require reliable sources as well. --Stfg (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013

74.130.142.194 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The page states that Jennifer Lawrence has never taken acting lessons or classes. However, she participated in "Othello" at Louisville's Walden Theatre: a youth theatre training program that requires you to take classes there to audition for shows. I am a Louisville native and resident and know several people who trained at Walden Theatre. One article about this can be found at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2121264/Fresh-faced-Jennifer-Lawrence-pictured-famous--acting-coaches-praise-natural-talent.html

Yeah, that part of the article is pretty strongly worded... it's pretty difficult to back up an absolute negative like that. I've removed that sentence based on the reference you provided. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

Jennifer Lawrence was named the Associated Press's Entertainer of the Year for 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/23/jennifer-lawrence-tops-miley-cyrus-netflix-for-ap-entertainer-year-title/ Krcd573 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

Take out her supposed relationship. The only references are gossip and unsubstantiated rumors. Neither one of them has confirmed a relationship, so this site should not sully its good name by using these so called "sources" as anything but the libel and worthless drivel that it is. Please remove to maintain this site's reputation against vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.246.64 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2014

She won a Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe award for her role in The American Hustle. At one point in the article, this has not been updated. Kindly do the same. Sjagtap (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Gloss • talk 00:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination age

When Jennifer Lawrence was nominated for her Best Actress Oscar in Winter's Bone, she was the second youngest person to be nominated, even if she's the third youngest now (Quvenzhané Wallis was nominated last year, the youngest to be nominated for Best Actress). I've tried to edit to reflect this, though it keeps getting revised. Have I gotten something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligress (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bias

Someone needs to take count of the bias on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.213 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please specify where the article is biased. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraphs are bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.119 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not much help. Be specific about what you think the bias is.--Asher196 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the IPs are referring to specifically, but mentioning the name of several awards in every single sentence during the first half of the lead, does make it very tedious to read. It is more about the awards than the movies and Lawrence herself. Nymf (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, the current structure of the lede reads better for List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence than the biography. I could see mentioning the major, major wins -- the Oscar and the Golden Globes, but not all the nominations and lesser awards. Courcelles 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of fluff, and retained information only regarding her major awards. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 07:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

Under "External Links" the "Official Site" of http://jennifer-lawrence.com/ is incorrect. This is a fan site only and not the official web site. This is even stated on the site it self on the left hand side under "Web Informations". It states, "jennifer-lawrence.com is an unofficial and non-profit fansite dedicated to Jennifer Lawrence. I am not associated with Jennifer or her management. All information and material found on this site is for entertainment purposes only....".

Please revise the "Official Site" link to http://jenniferslawrence.com/. This is confirmed by the "official" text on the web site itself and clarified again using Addouglas (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

punctuation error

"all time" at the end of paragraph 3 should not be hyphenated because it is not used as an adjective. Brdnrd59 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done--krimuk ⁹⁰ 19:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

To the section personal life, please could you add the fact that 'it is a rumour that Jennifer Lawrence is engaged.' 87.115.174.146 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done a source for that would be needed XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And we don't add rumours, sourced or not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

General

She was actually # 1 on Men's Top 99 most desirable list of 2013

I checked it out and this is correct, so the line has been fixed. Gloss • talk 17:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Isn't she #2? -Newyorkadam (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

If that link says #2, which link indicates #1? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the UK version of the list, I believe. Gloss • talk 04:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This reports #1 while UK lists #2, so which should we use? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

U.S... she's an American actress. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing both listed, but if it's one or the other, the U.S. of course. Gloss • talk 04:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Which image to use?

Image A

Image B

Please choose your preferred image, stating why you have chosen it. Alternatively, suggest a different image altogether. Please do not edit war over the image until this discussion has been closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither, I would personally use this:

XXSNUGGUMSXX's suggestion

The "A" option doesn't give a very good angle of her face while the "B" option has too bright lighting. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Krimuk90's suggestion

I would suggest this one over the others. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My choice is the current image, Image A. Gloss • talk 21:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I made a cropped version of Image A focusing on her face and my god, her neck....makes Rosie's neck look less longer...Looks like everyone has their favourite, I was OK with the original choice--Stemoc (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That neck! OMFG! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I vote for Image A -Newyorkadam (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Image A. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Image A has best lighting, contrast, and composition. It shows her well enough and big enough. More than just head shot. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Image by Krimuk90 – I find it to be the best of the bunch. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Another suggestion any comments on using this image @Gloss: recently added? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC):

I wouldn't agree with that being her lead image.. But the consensus here seems to be in favor of the current image. Gloss • talk 02:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case, it should probably be in a different section than filmography..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? The other sections are decently filled with images already. Gloss • talk 02:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

After expanding her "In the media" section (which I would suggest renaming to something like "public image"), it would be more suitable for something like that, as I've rarely seen images in filmography sections of biographies. Standards don't seem to include filmography images unless there is an article specifically dedicated to one's filmography. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Article problems

I see this has been nominated for GA (a bit too early, I fear) as there are still a few problems that will hold this back from passing. I'm willing to chip in, as I've already previously done a decent amount of work on this article, but for now I'll jot down some things I initially noticed.

• The work and publisher fields in the references should all be wiki-linked (for the most part)
• The awards and nominations section is basically empty. A decent summary of her awards and nominations should be included, and sourced. "She's won a lot of awards" won't cut it.
• There is still a lot of room for expansion. She's obviously gained a lot of attention the past few years or so, and I believe a lot more information exists for the "in the media" section. Also, an "acting style" type section should be added.. there has to be a ton of information out there about her acting style.

Again, I'm willing to help as much as I can, but before this can pass a GAN, it still needs some work. Gloss • talk 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this was nominated too soon, and feel it should (for now) be withdrawn. We should definitely expand on (if information is available) things like her relationships or public image. I know you meant well by nominating, @Newyorkadam:, but this definitely needs more work. Requesting/submitting for peer review would've been a better idea. It would be inappropriate for someone such as myself or @Gloss: to review the article since we have frequently contributed to it, though feel free to ask us for input on certain things. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the nomination, but I was comparing it against current-GA Amy Adams, and this article seemed very similar to that one. What do you suggest we work on first? -Newyorkadam (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

The previously addressed things should be worked on, and if I can think of any more I'll mention them. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: I've expanded on her awards and nominations, feel free to add more if needed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2014

Lone Alone12 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Media Profiles as Part of External Links

Is there any particular reason why her facebook and twitter profiles were not included as part of the external links? I came here hoping to find links to establish an authentic social engagement with her but to my surprise it was nowhere to be found. I also think that the major image being used makes her look very old. With that image she appears more like 40 and for a moment I did not recognize the very beautiful face of my Jenny. 41.206.1.13 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Listing them under "external links" is generally discouraged per WP:ELNO#10. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014

122.62.190.123 (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)kdjeklqq;n

 Not done please explain what in the article should be changed XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Birth date needs citation

We can't make a personal claim of someone's birth date without a citation, and Wikipedia doesn't consider the wikia IMDb a trustworthy source for biographical reference. I found this at the website of A&E Networks' The Biography Channel, and I'd like to ask someone to use this or some other RS to cite the BLP claim: http://www.biography.com/people/jennifer-lawrence-20939797 "Jennifer Lawrence Biography". --209.122.114.237 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Implementing Biography.com ref now, thank you for the link. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

GAN

Captain Assassin! (talk · contribs), it is too soon for this to be nominated- article needs expansion. For instance, more details on her awards would be nice, some details on her acting style/influences, and refs need touching up. Please wait until those have been addressed. I will nominate it when ready unless Gloss beats me to it. Feel free to put this up for peer review, though. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It was perfect for GA, but it'll wait if you want so. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

FHM

I think more should be made about her being No.1 in 2014.Vagout (talk). — Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned at all, so I added it.--Cojovo (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Joy

Lawrence is set to star in the movie "Joy" that will be released christmas 2015, it's already in Russell's filmography so if no one has any reason to not add it here I will put it in her filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mussobrennon (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Relationship edit

The users need to change her personal life status. She is no longer dating Nicholas Hoult (if she was ever dating him agian, which I highly doubt). You can look up this information on E News. I guess I'm vindicated at last Lady Lotus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.47.193 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide the source for that to be included Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Found it. Seems a bit sketchy, as it's just from "a source": "A source tells us that the split between the two "was very amicable" and explains that their successful careers made it hard on their relationship... 'They spent a lot of time apart because of work, and it was difficult on their relationship,' the insider added." Then it quotes how she wasn't ready to take the relationship to "the next level", but in no way does that seems to confirm a split. In all likelihood, they aren't together anymore, but it seems fishy enough that I'd wait it out. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 03:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, there was no source that said they were together in the first place yet you people put it in anyway. This is confirmation, so put it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.47.193 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, the link was found and things can be worked out. However, I concur with Sock that "a source" doesn't by itself have much credibility. It would be better if the name of this "source" was given. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

98.196.47.193, I honestly don't understand the obsession over this but the sources I have added stated they broke up (which means they were together), but the relationship will stay as it was a significant one. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)