Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Stone/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2016 [1].

Emma Stone

edit
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something about this redhead's husky voice that really gets me. I have enjoyed some of her films. Anyway, after a GAN, I was fortunate enough to receive thorough reviews from Moisejp and SchroCat. Thanks to SNUGGUMS, images have been reviewed in the article's talk. Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews. As I explained on the PR, I have used IMDb to source the awards section, which I know is not considered reliable, but in this case, it simply lists (or should I say relists) the awards she has won or been nominated for. I think it is much more convenient to link one page than to repeat a bundle of sources in a section. FrB.TG (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808

edit

Made some minor copy-edits throughout. Here's my comments:

Early career

  • There was already a listing for an "Emily Stone" when Stone registered for the Screen Actors Guild. —Not the best way to start a section. I would suggest to reword this as When Stone registered for the Screen Actors Guild, there was already a listing for an "Emily Stone".
  • Next sentence, She chose "Riley Stone" as her stage name initially, —Rewrite as She initially chose "Riley Stone" as her stage name,
  • That year, she also expressed a desire to become a film producer eventually. You don't need "eventually".

That's actually all I saw aside from the minor copy-editing. As to your comment about IMBD, although it may be more convenient, you should have reliable links for the awards. --JDC808 ♫ 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot JDC808. Regarding the IMDb bit, I would like to add that they are already sourced in the career section (I don't wanna repeat a bunch of sources which look weird). That source is just to not leave an unsourced section. FrB.TG (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating sources is fine, and doesn't look weird. Just make a <ref name=> for them. --JDC808 ♫ 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a little tricky. Even if I do repeat them (perhaps 17 refs for those two lines), nowhere in those sources do state that she's the nominee of two BAFTAs and two Golden Globes and such. IMDb is just fine to me and repeating 17 sources do look weird. Another article (of FA quality) has done the same. FrB.TG (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would put the ref after each entry of a reward (e.g., "Stone has been nominated for an Academy Award[1], two British Academy Film Awards[2][3], and two Golden Globe Awards[4][5]". and so on, that way it's not 17 refs or however many at the end of a sentence). If no other source states that she won those two BAFTAs and Golden Globes, than where did IMBD get their information? Who's to say they aren't lying? (By the way, the "list of awards" article has the sources.) Also, just because one article does it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's okay here. --JDC808 ♫ 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about I just remove the section (it does not state anything new anyway) and link it to in the media section, which is after all about honors and award polls. FrB.TG (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do it that way, that's fine. --JDC808 ♫ 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, done. FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of my points have been addressed. As I said earlier, there wasn't anything else that I saw. I am happy to Support this article's promotion. P.S. I also have the God of War video game series up for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 20:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've read this article and found it to be nicely written and comprehensive which meets the FA criteria. Any issues with the article were addressed at GA and PR. Good work! Z105space (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90

Very well-written. Some concerns:

  • Stone has called this experience "rock bottom". ==> Maybe better as: Stone deemed it as her "rock bottom" experience.
  • She was nominated for an Oscar for Birdman. Surely there are better reviews that actually talk of her performance than the ones cited, which mention her as the films' "hottest star".
Replaced with another review by The Daily Telegraph which talks about her monologue (almost every other review talks about her presence in that particular scene).
  • " Stone is filming her third film with Ryan Gosling - Damien Chazelle's musical comedy-drama La La Land,". Please use the mdash.
  • Who is Kieran Culkin?
  • Why is her awards page linked in the "media image" section? Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the above discussion with JDC808. FrB.TG (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it in the filmography section, where it is better suited, though a separate section mentioning her notable awards would be even better. Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done. Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Having reviewed the GA and read through this again, I'm confident this meets the FA criteria. It is well written and comprehensive. Well done! JAGUAR  16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Moisejp

Hi FrB.TG. The prose is in great shape, and I'm quite sure I'll be supporting. I would just like to maybe spot-check a few references. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Numerounovedant

Just a very minor suggestion

"Her mother was diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and was cured in 2008." = her "cancer" was cured.

Rest the article is really well written! Good job! It's a Support. NumerounovedantTalk 08:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've not been around FAC for a long time, and maybe expectations have changed, but I'm surprised to find seven supports for this article after a week. On prose alone, this cannot be FAC standard unless, as I say, expectations have changed remarkably. I also have a few concerns about the content of this article. I have no intention of providing a line-by-line review with fixes to be made but I think the authors need to take a close look at this one. Here are some examples only. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "is an American actress. One of the world's highest-paid actresses": actress...actresses in close proximity
I don't know what do you want me to do about it. I can't think of rewording it or a synonym for the word "actress". Besides, repetition can be found everywhere.
FrB.TG, please think about what you just said: "I don't know what do you want me to do about it". FAC reviewers will often suggest ways to solve prose problems, but it's not their obligation; we're reviewing, not copyediting. And "repetition" is not everywhere in good writing, unless there's a good reason for it. Here are several ways around this problem just to show that it can be done -- I'm not suggesting any of these is the best way to go, and in fact I think two of these have other problems. (1) "Emma Stone is an American actress, and one of the most highly-paid in the world. She has been nominated..." (2) Move the statement that she is highly paid to the end of the lead, as part of a summary of her career. (3) Move the statement to the end of the second sentence. This sort of re-working of material to balance rhythm, structure, and repetition, and to give a natural-feeling flow to the prose is part of producing high-quality Wikipedia articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, rephrased.
  • "has been nominated...": So the award has not been made, and she is still nominated? Why not just "was nominated", or "nominated"?
    This one I'd let go; I'd even say "has been nominated" is the usual way this sort of information gets phrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to her acting career, Stone engages in various philanthropic activities." In addition? What is being added to her career? How are her philanthropic activities connected to her acting. And what activities? This is so vague as to be meaningless. (And its not too clear from the main body what these are. She looks to promote some causes, but that is hardly philanthropy.) At least give some indication in the lead. (Maybe something like "Outside of her acting career", but I don't really like that either.)
  • "Stone began her career with a role in a theater production of The Wind in the Willows in 2000": Far too wordy. Why not just "Stone's first acting role was in a theater production of The Wind in the Willows in 2000"
  • "She was homeschooled for two years; during this period, she featured in sixteen plays in a regional theater in Arizona": Why does this need to be in the lead?
Why not?
  • "She studied at Xavier College Preparatory for one semester, and dropped out to pursue a career in film. As a teenager, she relocated to Los Angeles with her mother. ": She relocated after dropping out? And I think again the first sentence could be tighter. Maybe "She dropped out of Xavier College Preparatory after one semester to pursue a film career".
    I see you followed Sarastro1's suggestion here but haven't addressed the other point, which is that the sequence of events is unclear -- did she drop out and then relocate? This is an example of a problem that appears elsewhere: two adjacent sentences that aren't clearly narratively linked to each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stone made her television debut in VH1's In Search of the New Partridge Family, a reality show that produced only an unsold pilot. Following a series of small television roles, she made her film debut in the comedy Superbad (2007), for which she won a Young Hollywood Award. She achieved further mainstream attention in the horror comedy Zombieland (2009).": Sorry, but I think this is trivia, especially for the lead. Nor am I a fan of the simple sentence structure "Stone made... She made... She achieved" Couldn't this be simplified to "After a series of small television roles, she won a Young Hollywood Award for her film debut in Superbad (2007) and received particular media attention for her role in Zombieland (2009)."
  • The third paragraph of the lead has the same problems: repetitive, simple sentence structure, apparently trivial facts which are just presented in a list with no cohesive theme and fairly meaningless words like "garnered", "breakthrough" and "received praise".
What else would you expect in a biography of an actress like her?
The material in that paragraph is:
  1. First starring role and the nominations for it
  2. Two subsequent roles, one a well-received film
  3. Two films in which she received critical praise
  4. Oscar nod for Birdman
  5. Broadway debut
Of these, I'd say items 1, 4, and 5 clearly belong in a summarizing paragraph, and the order you have them in is right. Items 2 and 3 feel a little random; what's the basis for picking them? I particularly don't see why you single out Crazy, Stupid, Love; it's not her next film after Easy A, and you don't say it was better-received than her other movies. As for The Help, was her part well-received too? If you have sources that make it clear what her best performances are from Easy A on, then that's a natural way to structure the middle of the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have rephrased some words, perhaps reads better now?
  • And "receive" is mis-spelt.

Moving on from the lead, just some random observations:

  • "The media considers Stone one of her generation's more talented actresses": Ref 115 does not support this. It calls her "likeable" and "astonishing" but nothing bout talented, or that the media thinks she is talented. Even if it did call her "talented", such a reference would NOT support the opinion that the whole media considered her one of the most talented actresses around.
  • "As of 2016, she has moved back to Los Angeles": No, "In 2016, she moved back to Los Angeles".
  • "Her off-screen life is widely discussed by the mass media, though she has refused to speak openly about her private life. Concerned with living a "normal" life, she has said that she finds little value in the media attention": Three "lifes" in two sentences. Why off-screen life; is she dead on screen? Why not just "her life"? "Mass media"? Why not "media" or "journalists", or "entertainment journalists" or something less vague. Openly is redundant here, I think.
  • And the whole "Personal Life" section seems a randomly collected and organised group of facts. For example, "She has also named actress and singer-songwriter Marion Cotillard as another of her inspirations". Why is this important? Why is it in here? (And all I know about Stone is that she ended up in a relationship with Garfield after Spiderman. I would have thought that needed more prominence, but I know little about her.)
Why not? I can see some huge paragraphs covering about inspirations of music artists. And this is just a line about who has inspired her.
  • It looks like every film in which she has appeared merits its own paragraph. Why? I'm not sure rehashing all the media interviews she gave for the pre-publicity for her films is really the best way to fill a potential FA.
It's always nice to cover some background information on films an actor stars. Otherwise it would be the usual "played xx, was praised, won awards, box office success".

I am prepared to revisit this (though please ping me as I'm not around as much as I once was) and I'm pretty flexible, but I think this needs a lot of work. And just to reiterate that these are examples, and I suspect I could find many more if I looked through more carefully. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While some of your points were good, and I thank you for taking time to review this, I think it was just you being a little bit demanding. If you refer to other featured biographies, the structure and overall representation is pretty much the same. I urge you to take a look at articles of its kind before you choose to continue with your review. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of continuing my review at the moment. This does not meet the FA standards, in my opinion. That other articles are the same structure does not make this one good, and if you look carefully, I have not questioned the structure. I suspect the prose and sourcing of these other articles to be better, but you haven't named any. And if you do, yes WP:OTHER. I do rather know my way around FAC, and I have read and reviewed many articles. If you aren't prepared to accept criticism, so be it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully prepared for criticism when I nominate an article for FA, after all that's all it is for. I could name some articles of its kind (and someone of her generation) -- Josh Hutcherson and Sonam Kapoor (an article I wrote myself). Oh and I don't know what issue do you have with sourcing. I think the article is very well sourced. FrB.TG (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have described "breakthrough", "garner", the paragraphs about her roles and the likes as trivia; I don't know what else do you expect in the bio of up-and-coming actress like her. These are all the part of an actor's life. I am not sure how used you are to reviewing a film related article (and I am not questioning your experience), but this is how generally an actress' article is written. Again, what do you want me to write about in, say third para of the lead, which you consider trivial? The para discusses her films and the nature of her roles, which is perfectly natural for an actor's article. FrB.TG (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: After rereading my replies to your comments, I realize that they were very rude, for which I would like to apologize. I am not sure what could change your mind, but would you be kind enough to revisit this nomination. I would be really grateful to you. FrB.TG (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As an avid reader, I sat for an hour, analysing the prose and references (I checked for formatting and reliability), but I could not find anything to crap about. I disagree with the above reviewer that it is written in a trivial manner and not quite up to par. This is clearly a very well-written and comprehensive article, without going into unnecessary detail, quite similar to other featured articles. Good work.
It's of a UK-based IP that occasionally reviews FA nominations. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TonyTheTiger
The review is for her performance in the film, not her cover.
I slapped in the wrong title. I meant The House Bunny. I am just a bit worried that you are giving us a single positive quote rather than summarizing that her reviews were generally positive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that I could even find this. This was an easily dismissed role, and there was no mention of her in other sources.
clarified FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any commentary about Stone?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certain sources do mention it as a memorable role of hers, but there is no critical commentary on her performance that is mentionable or quotable. FrB.TG (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per above.
I don't think it was a particularly notable role, so it's probably not a good idea to add so much about it.
You should state what her role was.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she was reviewed it is your responsibility to summarize those reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I could find any review mentioning her.
Again you should state her role.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
stated FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is only the review quotable or worthy of mention. There were only few reviews discussing her supporting role and/or performance.
Is that really necessary to discuss overall reaction of critics towards her every film? Besides, it's very difficult to find a source that discusses review round-up of her performance in certain film.
I am off the opinion that if she was critically reviewed in WP:RSs for any role you are suppose to summarize those reviews unless space is a consideration (the article gets well past 60k and probably towards 100k characters of readable prose).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added some negative reviews. FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the former was criticized, but her performance was generally well-received, as we can see in the source 78.
When I use the word criticism, it may be positive or negative. This paragraph is improved now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It comprises only a few line, which I don't think will make a para.
This is definitely a separate idea and should be a distinct paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Is that really necessary for two two commercial failures? Besides, I have the whitewashing criticism. FrB.TG (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are of the opinion that you are only suppose to summarize successful activities, I must Oppose this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that for the films you ask to summarize critically her performance, they were all supporting roles and easily dismissed. There were very few reviews mentioning her, so it's hard to say "overall positive/negative" based on two-three reviews. Anyway, I have added the overall reaction for the films I could find sources and have added negative reaction. I also have resolved the rest of your comments.
@TonyTheTiger: I have managed to add the critical commentary for almost all of the films. Please take a look. FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved your comments as for the concern for tense, I have replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5. FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am watching that discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax – . Hi, FrB.TG. I have made several edits to help make Emma Stone's article suitable for a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back and I will !vote soon. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax! I am satisfied with the changes you have made. FrB.TG (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Checkingfax:! Do you have any further thoughts? FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This FAC has had a source review and spot-check of sources. A user opposed, raising some valid concerns, who has made it clear that they are not willing to not continue with their review. It currently has ten supports, including two after the oppose. Do you think there is consensus for closure just yet? FrB.TG (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GRuban

edit

Oppose, basically backing Sarastro's comments, this is poorly written. Just some examples from a brief skim of just the first, Early life, section (I am quite sure I can find more later):

  • "As an infant, Stone had baby colic and cried frequently. As an adult, she developed nodules and calluses on her vocal chords." No, that's not what the source says, it says she developed nodules as an infant.
  • In addition, this line is out of place, the first paragraph is about her family origins, not about her as an infant.
Not really, it's about her growing up. Moved to second para.
  • "While Stone has not described herself as a "tomboy"": Other things she has not described herself as include a rutabaga, a wildebeest, and the Queen of Sheba.
  • "In a 2013 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Stone said" - this whole section is based on interviews, it's full of quotes like a picnic is full of ants, why mention which interview this particular line is from?
Because in this one she gave a large statement about her past and the interviewer is quite notable, too.
  • "Stone has acknowledged that she was drawn to acting from the age of four" - Acknowledged? Did someone confront her with this claim? "Ms Stone, we have seventeen witnesses to testify that you were drawn to acting from the age of four! Admit it!"
  • "She initially wanted a career in sketch comedy, but shifted focus toward musical theater and took voice lessons for eight years" - the fact that this is bracketed by "age of 4" and "age of 11" implies that she declared her sketch comedy intentions at the age of 4. Did she? If not, rephrase, reorder, or both.
  • "a local acting coach, who had worked at the William Morris Agency in the 1970s, and had film connections" - did she use those connections? If so, say it, and cite it. If not, remove.
  • The real reason I came here, however, was the "Personal life" section, which is a list of non-notable short term affairs. Remove them. We are not a gossip magazine. --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the other two relationships, but her affair with Andrew Garfield attracted wide media attention.

More:

Thank you for your comments. While its writing might be short of FA at places, I look forward to more of your comments so that I can improve it more. FrB.TG (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Oppose, on prose grounds. Since there is a discussion of some specific prose issues above, I'll add comments there. Sarastro1, if you'd prefer I move my comments to a separate section, rather than interspersing them with yours, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some comments above. I'll add a couple more comments below, just to make it clear that the problems are not restricted to what's been pointed out already.
  • There are a few examples of "saidism": using words like "deemed" and "stated" to avoid the repetition of "said". It's quite hard to overuse "said", but even when "said" isn't the best choice, there are usually better ways out of the problem than substituting this sort of word.
  • The problem of disconnected sentences placed next to each other without any sense of narrative flow reappears in the second paragraph of "Early life".
  • Last paragraph of the "Early life" section: is there a date for when she dropped out of school? It seems as though she relocated right after she dropped out (and maybe that's why she dropped out) but it could be clearer.
  • "She played the love interest of Hill's character and to look the part, dyed her hair red": clumsy. As it stands it needs a comma after "and", but I would suggest rewriting it to avoid having to say "the love interest of Hill's character".
  • "she found the role difficult as the character's personality traits contrasted with her own": I don't think this is the right way to say this. A role with a personality that contrasts with one's own is not automatically difficult to act; the point is that she found it to be difficult. Perhaps "admitted that she found it difficult acting a character whose personality traits were so different to her own", though even that is probably not right, unless Stone admitted that any contrast would have been a challenge, not just this particular one.

-- I'm going to stop there as I think there is plenty of evidence this needs substantial work on prose. I'll revisit if you ask me to (no need to ping me; I'm watching the page) but please don't restrict the fixes just to the points I've listed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a never-ending discussion with a support followed by an opposed followed by a support and so on. I have resolved those concerns of yours (alongside some other ones which I noticed myself). I would be very happy if you revisit, though this does not seem to have a good chance due to the contrasting thoughts of the reviewers. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the fixes you've made, and scanned the rest of the article; I'm going to leave my oppose standing, I'm afraid, as I still think the prose is not at the level it needs to be for FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking whether or not the prose is up to par. I was rather asking if you could post more comments. Anyway, it seems like an mpossible task to satisfy every reviewer here. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. FAC is not for everyone. FrB.TG (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emma_Stone/archive1&oldid=1138459580"