Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laura Harrier/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) 30 June 2020 [1].

Laura Harrier

edit

This is about actress and former model Laura Harrier, who is widely known for her starring roles as Liz in Spider-Man: Homecoming, as Patrice in BlacKkKlansman, and as Camille in Netflix's miniseries Hollywood. This article was recently granted Good Article status.


Nominator(s): Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Laura Harrier Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Are you still there? I see that you've been active on Wikipedia but you haven't replied. I'd love any input you might have to improve this article to perhaps reach Featured Article status. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly discourage you from pinging an editor three times in a row. If he or she has the time to respond and is willing to, then they will. Guerillero's point about the sources has already been addressed. If anything, the repeated pings is more likely to annoy editors and discourage them from doing anything further here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the time or desire to provide a full review. I found a glaring source issue and I wanted to bring it to your attention. I never opposed which would require me to return. I found your pings and talk page message to be badgering. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: So how do I revert the images back to their normal state without having a set/specific pixel size? I tried fiddling around with it. Let me know if there's still issues with the images. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "normal state"? If you simply want to use the default then use 'thumb'. If you want to scale the image up or down relative to the default then you can use |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Everything should be fixed now. If there are any further issues, let me know. If not, please let me know how to proceed. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello I'm just following up. Please let me know. Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another editor has implemented |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Is there anything else you think can improve? How should I proceed? Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much yes, you wait. I've done an image review, which is a required step, but FACs can take several weeks to attract the requisite reviews to pass. You can if you so choose post a neutral notification at relevant WikiProjects which might help bring eyes in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I would avoid doing Wikipedia:SHOUT (i.e. having words in all caps) for the titles of reference 6, 11, and 29. I would also avoid having website and publication titles put in all caps in the citations, as it is done for references 64, 69, 80, and 84.
  • Reference 48 is not complete.
  • Reference 16 is missing the publication date. This is also true for references 6, 13, and 14. I'd strongly encourage you to check each reference to make sure they have the publication dates.
  • References 6 and 11 seem to be the same thing.
  • I am confused by how websites/publications are linked in the citations. I personally link it for each citation, but I have also seen people that only link on the first instance. But, in this article, The Hollywood Reporter is linked in reference 27, but not in reference 26. Variety is linked in reference 31, but not in reference 28. Refinery29 is linked in each of its citations. The citations seem to be inconsistent in this area.
  • The references for Fahrenheit 451 in the "Television" table seem unnecessary since none of the other entries have citations and this information is already included and cited in a previous part of the article.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence (She has appeared in magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour.). From my experience, I have rarely seen a celebrity's appearances in magazines included in a featured article.
  • Do we know either of her parents' names or her younger brother's name?
  • Since you mention her mother's background, do we know anything else about her father's background?
  • For this part, (She began modeling at the age of 17 after coming home from school and being discovered by her mother's friend,), I am uncertain if the "coming home from school" part is really necessary. I think you can just say "She began modeling at the age of 17 after being discovered by her mother's friend," to make this part somewhat more concise.
  • Did she ever say why she deferred enrollment for NYU?
  • The Cut citation used for the William Esper Studio sentence has interesting quote where she thought she'd "be doing weird, Off Broadway theater after I graduated". That information could be interesting enough for inclusion in the article as it helps to expand on this period of her life.
  • For this part, (in the first and only season of the web series), I would just say "the only season" as "first and only" seem repetitive to me.
  • Avoid using "TV" as done here, "in the TV series". It should always be "television" instead as "TV" is too informal.
  • This sentence, (as a woman who has an affair with Jeremy Jordan's character), is an odd mixture of in-universe and out-of-universe information. Rather than saying "Jeremy Jordan's character", it may be better to say who is character is and add that Jeremy Jordan played that role. It would give me a greater understanding of the film and her role. Since I've never seen this film, the current sentence does not mean much to me.
  • For the "real acting job", did she explain why her previous appearances did not feel like real acting jobs to her.
  • Do not put punctuation in quotes, as done here ("real acting job."), unless it is a complete sentence/full quote.
  • I would link Liz Allan in full rather than just having her first name visible.
  • Is there any further information on her appearance in this film? Any reviews for her performance or further background information? I'm just curious as it seems like a major role, but it is only briefly mentioned here.
  • For the Fahrenheit 451, I would include a link to the book.
  • Was there any reason given for why her scenes were removed from Fahrenheit 451?
  • I would see if there was a way to revise this part, (when Lee demanded that she meet him in New York City to audition for the role, with Lee acting as her scene partner for the audition.), without repeating "Lee" twice in the same sentence.
  • The citation placement is strange in this part. It's odd how citation 38 is in the midd of the sentence, and it is then unclear what citation is being used to support the rest of the sentence. The citation placement also hinders the readability of the sentence somewhat.
  • New York University is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked on the first mention.
  • For this part, (For her performance in the film, Harrier received critical acclaim), there needs to be a citation to support the "critical acclaim" part.
  • I would simplify this part, (director Jamie Adams reached out to Harrier to offer her the lead role in his film Balance, Not Symmetry), by just saying something like: (director Jamie Adams offered Harrier the lead role in his film Balance, Not Symmetry). The "reached out" part is not necessary.
  • The word "film" is used quite a bit in the "Acting" subsection. I'd try to lower the amount of times it is used.
  • For this part, (with her later on-screen boyfriend Darren Criss), I do not think "later" is needed.
  • Did she explain how Lena Horne inspired her?
  • I have noticed that aside from the "critical acclaim" part for her performance in BlacKkKlansman, the article does not mention her reviews for her other projects. If possible, it would be helpful to include more on that. For instance, how was her performance on Hollywood received? I imagine she at least got some reviews since she is a lead there.
  • For this part, (from the actress Dorothy Dandridge due to Dandridge having faced similar struggles), I'd just say "actress" instead of "the actress", and I'd revise the last part to (Dorothy Dandridge who faced similar struggles) to avoid repeating Dandridge twice in the same sentence.
  • I'd make the Halle Berry part into a separate sentence.
  • For the "Modeling and fashion" section, I'd make it one paragraph as I do not see a clear reason why the information is separated into two paragraphs.
  • For this part, (a campaign film for luxury French fashion brand Kenzo directed by Carrie Brownstein), I'd revise it to (a campaign film directed by Carrie Brownstein for luxury French fashion brand Kenzo) so the "directed by" part follows right after the film.
  • I would avoid "the latter" whenever possible.
  • The New York City link should be moved to the first instance it is used in the article and it should only be linked once.
  • Make sure citations are in numeric order. I'd revise the citations for the Time's Up sentence to be in numeric order instead.
  • The "It is known that..." phrasing seems strange to me. I'd remove it.
  • Are that many citations needed for the Klay Thompson sentence? It seems excessive to me.

A lot of great work has been done for this article. However, more work is needed for it to meet the FA requirements. My primary concern is the citation formatting, but I also think the prose could be improved overall. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the article again to see if there is anything else. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47:

  • I got rid of all caps lettering, and added the publication dates for all references
  • I finished and completed ref 48
  • All websites/publications that have Wikipedia articles are linked, including The Hollywood Reporter and Variety
  • Got rid of the already-used/unnecessary refs for Fahrenheit 451 in the TV table
  • Harrier's magazine appearances: (She has appeared in magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour.), is included in the article and under the "Modeling and fashion" section because she was modeling for those magazines before beginning her acting career and still continues to model from time to time. If you read the refs that were included, you'll see that. But I understand what you're saying. If you still feel the sentence unnecessary I can totally get rid of it or modify.
  • I added two sources which provides info about her parents' and younger brother's names
  • It's not known what heritage or of what descent her father is; it's just known that he's black/African-American and works in insurance.
  • I changed the sentence to (She began modeling at the age of 17 after being discovered by her mother's friend, a location scout.). I feel including the "location scout" part is necessary to give context, but I got rid of everything else.
  • She deferred her enrollment to NYU due to booking profitable modeling work. She's appeared in numerous campaigns and modeled for many big companies and brands prior to starting acting. This is mentioned in the article, perhaps you missed it. I added some clarification in the article though.
  • I agree and I included the quote about her thinking she'd be doing "Off Broadway theater after I graduated."
  • I made it "Harrier's first acting job was as main role Destiny Evans in the only season of the web series reboot of the American soap opera One Life to Live (2013)."
  • Changed the use of "TV" in the article to "television"
  • Fixed the sentence (as a woman who has an affair with Jeremy Jordan's character)
  • She considers Codes of Conduct her "first real acting acting job" due to Steve McQueen having directed the film 12 Years a Slave and because "she was getting down to 2 Chainz with the director she’d just shot an HBO pilot with: Steve McQueen." It's implied that it was her first big project due to it being with a well-known director, McQueen, and it being a principal role and it being for a large TV network (i.e. HBO). She also booked it in her last year of school in 2015 but at the same time she had a main role as Destiny on One Life to Live. I do know what you mean though. Maybe I should just get rid of the quote about it being her "first real acting job?"
  • You do not have to get rid of the quote. I was just wondering if there was further background to explain this quote. Prior to this pilot, she had roles on One Life to Live, Unforgettable, The Last Five Years, and 4h Man Out, and they would be considered "real acting job[s]" (at least in my opinion). My question is why did she consider the pilot to be more of a "real acting job" than any of her past work at that point in her career? Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got rid of punctuation in "real acting job"
  • The reason why Liz Allan isn't linked with the last name Allan is because Harrier is never credited as Liz Allan, she's simply credited as Liz (without a last name). In the film credits it's simply "Liz" and it's the same in all of the official movie announcements, press releases, and most magazine interviews. This is detailed both in the invisible note in Harrier's film table on this article and on the Spider-Man: Homecoming page. There's confusion about it but her name in-universe is simply Liz. The character however is loosely based on Liz Allan and this was confirmed by both Harrier and the director, which is why Allan is linked.
  • If it is uncertain that she is playing this character, the prose does not reflect that. By having the link to the Liz Allan article and having parts like ("made her major film debut and breakthrough portraying Liz" and "Harrier booked the role of Peter Parker's love interest Liz"), it reads like she is playing this character. I've never seen any of these movies so it comes across like this even more to an unfamiliar reader like me. I'd clarify in the prose that the Liz character was loosely based on Liz Allan. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, it's interesting that you say: "Is there any further information on her appearance in this film? Any reviews for her performance or further background information? I'm just curious as it seems like a major role, but it is only briefly mentioned here." It is her breakthrough role and she is the leading lady of the movie but interestingly enough it's very difficult, if not impossible, to find any professional critic reviews or really any reviews about Harrier, her character Liz, and her performance in the film. The only thing I found was a negative review from Marie Claire magazine. I've included it in the article, let me know what you think.
  • Thank you for the Marie Claire quote. It may be a case where the character was overshadowed by others in the film. The Marie Claire quote is quite long though, and I would work on avoiding that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Fahrenheit 451, I included a link to the book.
  • She was cut from the film because the director felt the character didn't fit the storyline and to cut down on time; I added this into the article.
  • Fixed the sentence (when Lee demanded that she meet him in New York City to audition for the role, with Lee acting as her scene partner for the audition.)
  • Changed citation placement of ref 38 (now ref 39) and put it to after the sentence instead of in middle of sentence.
  • Got rid of second link for New York University
  • I got rid of "critical acclaim" in the sentence (For her performance in the film, Harrier received critical acclaim).
  • Fixed sentence (director Jamie Adams reached out to Harrier to offer her the lead role in his film Balance, Not Symmetry)
  • I cut down on the word "film" in the "Acting" section as much as I could.
  • Got rid of "later" in "later on-screen boyfriend Darren Criss
  • I clarified how she was inspired by Lena Horne
The Horne part still reads awkwardly to me. Maybe combine it with the Dandrige part to read like: (Harrier largely drew inspiration for the role from actresses Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne who faced similar struggles that Camille does in the series.)? Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a review about her performance in One Life to Live and a few reviews for her performance in Hollywood
  • I fixed the part about Dorothy Dandridge and made the part about Halle Berry its own sentence
  • Made "Modeling and fashion" section into one paragraph and fixed wording for The Realest Real
  • I don't see the issue with using the phrase "the latter" as long as it's used sparingly and when necessary. I don't get how else to phrase it without being repetitive, it seems perfectly reasonable to me, no one else has commented on that part, and I've seen it used in many Good Articles and Featured Articles like Jennifer Lawrence and Amanda Seyfried.
  • Linked New York City only the first time it's used
  • Made citations in numeric order
  • Removed the "It is known..." part
  • Minimized amount of citations for the Klay Thompson sentence

I fixed everything you mentioned. Please reread and let me know if anything else should be done prior to perhaps making this a Featured Article. I really appreciate you taking the time to review. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything, and great work with the article. I think you have added far too many reviews for her Hollywood performance. I would use two or three reviews instead of a separate paragraph. For the Spider-Man: Homecoming reviews, I would only include two of three positive reviews. I would actually take out the The New York Observer one. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I combined the reviews with the Hollywood paragraph. I got rid of one or two reviews and truncated the quotes to be as short as possible. With Spider-Man and Hollywood, arguably her most notable/famous performances and roles to date, both of her performances received a very mixed response so to include solely positive reviews would misrepresent how people feel about her acting in those projects and if someone is trying to learn about Harrier, it's important for it to be a true objective written account of her. I also consider two or three of the reviews for Hollywood as also being a review for BlacKkKlansman, another one of her famous roles. Could you perhaps read it over to tell me what you think? I believe I made it as concise as possible while utilizing reliable reviews about her performances. Factfanatic1 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will read through the article again later tonight, but I never said to remove the negative reviews so I do not understand where you got that impression. Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think there are far too many reviews for her Hollywood performance. The article currently includes six separate reviews. If you look at a featured article like Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Winslet, or Leonardo DiCaprio, none of those articles use that many reviews for a single performance. From my experience, the amount of reviews is generally kept to two or three, and you can still convey the depth of the mixed reviews with that amount. I am sorry, but I feel very strongly on this matter.
  • I even think having four separate reviews for her Spider-Man: Homecoming performance is too much, and I only recommend removing the Observer review because Marie Claire shows a negative review and IGN and Forbes show positive reviews so the mixed reception to her performance is already represented. Also certain parts of my above comments have not been corrected like the Harper's Bazaar and Rotten Tomatoes links. I do not mean to sound harsh or negatively as I am very happy to see a new editor in the FAC space, and I would love to see an article on a woman of color. Maybe other editors will comment on the review parts as well. Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47:
  • I added links for all refs with Harper's Bazaar and Rotten Tomatoes.
  • I fixed the part about Laura's mom and her last name (Sagan)
  • Paraphrased The Cut quote about her thinking she'd do "Off Broadway theater"
  • The punctuation should be on the outside of the quotation marks. I would look through the entire article to make sure that punctuation is on the outside of the quotation marks (unless it is a full sentence/quote). Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genuine question, why would the punctuation go outside the quotation marks? For instance, when she talks about Codes of Conduct and says it's her "first real acting job", in the quote itself in both articles (or at least one of the articles) the quote ends the sentence on its own Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The punctuation should be on the outside because you are only taking a certain portion of a sentence. If you are citing a sentence in full, the punctuation should be on the inside, but from the best of my understanding, the punctuation goes on the outside when only a small portion of a large sentence is taken from a source. You can ask other editors though as they would know more than me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it, thank you. Just needed clarification to understand. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey @Aoba47: just following up about this punctuation/quotation marks formatting question.
  • Why she considers Codes of Conduct her first real acting job when she had already been part of a few large projects is not clear; it's heavily implied that due to it being on a prestigious network like HBO and it being with a renowned and acclaimed director that she looked up to (Steve McQueen), that's why. Do you think I should somehow include this in the article or leave it out for the sources to describe for readers?
  • I would keep the quote in the article. I was asking more out of my own curiosity. If she does not really elaborate on her point, then I do not think more should be added, but it is interesting enough for inclusion in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harrier did receive "critical acclaim" for BlacKkKlansman with reviews that reflect that and her being nominated for a few awards.
  • About the Lena Horne part reading awkwardly, the role is largely inspired (percentage-wise maybe 80 to 90%) by Dandridge and then a bit/some by Lena Horne. This was made clear in interviews by Harrier. Camille and Dandridge both acheived stardom/success around the same time, both were the first ever black women nominated for the Best Actress Oscar, Harrier's look and personality was inspired by her, and so was the general career. I'm not sure how to reflect that in the article; your suggestion to instead say "Harrier largely drew inspiration for the role from actresses Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne who faced similar struggles that Camille does in the series," would diminish how much Dandridge inspired the role and even Ryan Murphy largely paid homage to Dandridge as stated in interviews. By saying "largely drew inspiration for the role from actresses Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne" it makes it seem that both Dandridge and Horne roughly inspired the part equally which isn't at all true. Maybe I could say: "Harrier largely drew inspiration for the role from actress Dorothy Dandridge, who faced similar struggles that Camille does in the series, and also drew some inspiration Lena Horne."
  • Thank you for the clarification. I understand and agree with your point. I would go back to making Lena Horne a separate sentence then because the repetition of "drew inspiration" in the above suggestion is not ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I truncated and got rid of reviews to be a maximum of three while also reflecting the mixed reception(s).

I should have corrected everything that you brought up and I have read through the article. I will do another reread right now and make any further necessary edits along the way. Please let me know what you think and if anything else should be done prior to perhaps making this a Featured Article. I really appreciate you taking the time to review. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. The part about Liz Allan still needs to be addressed. I would clarify in the prose that her character was loosely based on Liz Allan. I will look through the article again tomorrow. For the future, from my experience, it is more common to responses directly underneath each of the individual points rather than putting them all at the end. That way, it is easier for a reviewer like myself to see what has been addressed, and to not take up as much space. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I just fixed the part about Liz Allan so it should be fine now. I also improved the sentence about Lena Horne; so everything should be fine now. I'll read the article again a bit later as well and make any needed copy edits. Please let me know if anything further is needed. I will be sure to address any further responses directly underneath each one individually for clarity and space reduction. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I am trying my best to help you with the article, so apologies if I come across as rude/negative. I will read through the article again tomorrow. This article has definitely piqued my my interest in this actor. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. You haven't come across as rude or negative in the slightest; you've been really helpful and have helped me make improvements in places I didn't realize needed improvement until you brought it up. I also had a question about the quotation marks/punctuation formatting which you can find lines above this sentence. Factfanatic1 (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. I would still look at the Marie Claire quote. It is a long quote that takes up over three lines of prose so I would encourage you to paraphrase and choose parts of that quote to cite. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cut the Marie Claire in half just about so it's pretty concise; check it out and please let me know what you think. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about the "first real acting job" as I can only find this quote ('first real job") in the citation, which does not have the "acting" part. Can you point to where this quote is? I am probably missing it so apologies for that. Reference 31 is missing the author. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have misread "first real job", (which is the exact quote she says in both refs), as "first real acting job." It's the former, not the latter. I fixed it. I added both the date and author for ref 31.
  • Apologies for all of the messages. I just wanted to let you know that I have revised the Hollywood paragraph so please check that all of the information is still factual. If you dislike my edits, then feel free to revert. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's no problem at all, you've been eternally helpful. I reviewed the Hollywood paragraph and your edits were definitely helpful and made it all concise while still keeping the meaning of what I originally wrote. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Everything should be done now on my end. Thank you for your edits, you've made it more concise while keeping the meaning and I really appreciate it. By the way, in the future if you could do all your edits in one, or if not two, different times for this page at one time, I'd appreciate it. I say that only because this time around you made about four or five different edits in a row and I can sometimes miss it as I contribute to many articles and it can be hard for me to jump back and forth. But with one edit, I can see all the edits you made on one page and easily respond. Also, I usually don't take so long to reply to edits; I was busy today and only now saw this. In any case, please let me know what you think of my revision of the Marie Claire quote, I replaced undeveloped part of The Hollywood Reporter quote by Fienberg with the actual quote, and all punctuation for quotes should be fixed as of now. Please let me know how I should move forward. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @Aoba47: Hey, just following up. Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I already received your first ping. It has only been a few hours since your first response, and it has not even been a full day since I last responded on here. Please give me the time to properly read and review the article and the changes done. The additional follow-up message and ping were not necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work with the article, and I think it has improved a lot since the review started. I still do not think the Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour sentence should be there. It is common for models and actors to be featured in these types of publications, so I do not think her appearances in them are notable enough for inclusion here. From my understanding of reference 4, she was featured in Elle (I would actually clarify in the citation that this is Elle Australia) to promote the Spider-Man movie. If you look at an article like Kate Winslet or Jennifer Lawrence, neither of them list what publications they have appeared in to promote a film, even though both of them have likely appeared in quite a few. For that reason, I would remove this sentence, but you can still wait to hear back from other editors. But, that is the only thing stopping me from supporting this for promotion as everything else looks good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I fixed ref 4 to be Elle Australia. The source itself was talking about her modeling for Elle US. It wasn't for her to promote Spider-Man or any of her other work. It's kind of like how model Miranda Kerr has several of her major magazine appearances included in her article. Prior to becoming an actor, Harrier was a very accomplished model. She was never famous but she made enough money to travel the world and have the freedom to take time off when she wanted to and then go on to pursue an acting career. She's spoken about this in several interviews. The sources aren't speaking about her appearances in magazines for promoting her work; they're speaking about her modeling work. If you dig a little, you'll find that in addition to being in many campaigns for clothing brands (prior to her acting career) she's appeared in many magazines, and I included the most notable ones. No other editors have ever had an issue with the section. By the way, how would I attract more editors to this page to get more input? Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can get more attention for this nomination by reviewing other FACs and asking them for help in return, reaching out to a FAC mentor, or putting a message on the talk pages of related WikiProjects. You could also reach out to FAC contributors who have worked on similar articles for help here. A list of editors by FA nominations can be found here.
  • I remove the "critical acclaim" parts as again, I do not think such strong word choice can be supported from just citing three reviews alone. There were two instances of the same Lindsey Bahr source so I removed one.
  • Thank you for the clarification on her modeling work. The revised version of that sentence is clearer to me now. I have a question about the "Modeling and fashion" subsection. Could that information be incorporated into previous sections rather than in this separate area? For instance, could the Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour jobs appear in the "Early life" section to flesh out the part on her modeling career? I am curious on how this subsection would be handled as Harrier's acting career (ideally) grows and the "Acting" section expands as a result? The current way could be fine and I am not pushing for any specific method, but I would just like your opinion on that before I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the "critical acclaim" parts and your revisions. In regards to the "Modeling and fashion" section, I merged it with her "Career" heading. Let me know what you think. That makes me think of a few questions. Do you think I should put the modeling work she did for the magazines under "Career" rather than "Early life" since she was at least 18 years old when she did all of those and they were for professional high-profile magazines? Do you think we should create subsections for her "Career" section or is her career not long enough to do so? For instance, maybe the first section could be "Modeling and One Life to Live (2008–2015)", "Spider-Man: Homecoming & Breakthrough (2017–present)"? I don't know. It's difficult because she really only has three notable roles/projects that are widely known. And my other question, for the infobox info about "Years Active" should we change it from "2013–present" to "2007–present"? I ask because she's been professionally modeling since then, at 17, but at the same time, she wasn't famous or widely known so it's hard to decide. But I thought it would also be notable because as I mentioned earlier, and she's said in interviews, how due to the modeling she's had a cozy life and it gave her the opportunity to get into acting in the first place after making contacts and doing high-profile modeling work. Let me know what you think of these three questions please. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I understand your point about her modeling career. I have taken inspiration from the Lady Gaga and Katy Perry articles to try for a different type of section structure and organization. Feel free to revert it if you disagree though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I reverted some of your edits and worked with others; I liked what you were going for generally speaking but I feel like for this article it's better if there are four headings: Early life, Career, Personal Life, and Filmography. It's what I'm used to for actresses and I've been taking inspiration from Jennifer Lawrence, Julianne Moore, Anne Hathaway, and Amanda Seyfried, which are both Good Articles and/or Featured Articles, and all subjects are actresses. For the infobox info about "Years Active" should we change it from "2013–present" to "2007–present"? I ask because she's been professionally modeling since then, at 17, but at the same time, she wasn't famous or widely known so it's hard to decide. But I thought it would also be notable because as I mentioned earlier, and she's said in interviews, how due to the modeling she's had a cozy life and it gave her the opportunity to get into acting in the first place after making contacts and doing high-profile modeling work. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I only offered that suggestion to provide a way to clearly mark her modeling career. You can change the infobox parameter to "2013–present" to "2007–present". I disagree with the placement of the modeling work as the first sentences of the "2013–2017: Acting debut and breakthrough" subsection, and I still think those parts work better in the "Early life" section to keep all of the information on her modeling career in one area. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I think of it I agree. Do you think it would be best to leave it under "Early life" or do you think we should make a subsection under the "Career" heading for her modeling work titled "2007–2012: Modeling work"? Or is that overkill because of the lack of info for her modeling work? Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree with that edit because the "Early life" section is already rather short so making it even shorter (i.e. one paragraph) would be less than ideal. You could try renaming this section to something like ("Early life and modeling career"), but that is up to you. I think the current structure is better than the one you recommended. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a FAC to be promoted as a featured article, a consensus must be formed among multiple editors so other editors would have to support this. To be perfectly honest, I find your response to be off-putting. It would have been nice to get a simple thank you after all the time and energy I put into helping you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean at all to be off-putting nor rude, I apologize. You've been eternally helpful and have taught me great useful things. I'll be patient for other editors. Again, thank you! Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just be more mindful in the future. That kind of response to my support and your interactions with Guerillero (as shown above) could deter editors from working with you in the future so it is important to be more aware of how you interact with others. For instance, while it is nice that you thanked me now, it does not really mean anything since I basically had to ask for that. I know you do not mean to be off-putting or rude, but again, it is something to be mindful about it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I have supported this, I agree with the recent conversation that it would be best to withdraw this and start a peer review to really substantially improve the article and have longer conversations (which should not really occur at the FAC level). That was my fault, and I should have recommended this earlier so I apologize for that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TonyTheTiger

edit
  • It has been a while since I have been at FAC as either a nominator or a reviewer, but this WP:CHICAGO ping is one I will make time for. One reason I am willing to take a very close look is that this is a pretty short article, which also makes me doubt that it could really be FAC-worthy on first blush. I'll make some time this weekend for this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I was around here, they did not support IG links in the EL section. I dropped down there to look for the FMD link since she is a model and did not find it. You should look at some top model articles and find the proper ELs for her. I have done a bunch of model articles and sometimes have 3 or 4 els just for modelling.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ELNO: it says that editors should generally avoid links to a list of types of links (which includes Instagram) but it does say "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". Harrier's Instagram account has been verified and she often posts promotional clips and work, excerpts from interviews, and in the past (prior to about 2017) she posted a good amount of modeling work that she did. So I believe it's a good source but I completely get it if you'd like to get rid of it. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unknown what exactly she did in her childhood and teen years; she's never spoke about it. We don't know if she played sports, did dance, was a babysitter, or anything. All that's known is that she loved reading magazines and learning about fashion when she was younger and then began modeling at 17 following being discovered by her mom's friend. She's also never walked the runway, let alone for any fashion weeks or major brands; or at least nothing can be found online about that. All that can be found online in regards to her modeling work are her appearances in magazines, catalogs, and for clothing brands on their websites. Her only known modeling work for commercials was for Garnier. Shortly before Spider-Man came out she appeared in a Calvin Klein underwear campaign but that sort of counts as promotional work and that was after it was widely known she was playing Liz in the blockbuster and was already pretty well known so that doesn't really count. So yeah, really only Garnier. There are no online records of her appearing in other commercials although she very well may have. She's spoken in interviews about being in multiple commercials (plural) but nothing can be found online. Factfanatic1 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyTheTiger: About her living in Greenwich Village/Brooklyn, I missed this before but I did add her information about where she lived in New York City but another editor believed it was excessive and we came to an agreement to get rid of it. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually my first time submitting a Featured Article Candidate so I'm still learning, but I believe at the top right of this page if you scroll all the way up, there's a sidebar for you to use (if this is what you're talking about). Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She appeared in numerous notable campaigns and magazines such as Target, Aerie, Urban Outfitters, L'Oreal, ALDO, Vogue, Glamour, Elle, etc. prior to her acting career, but she was never famous or well-known. She was financially successful but not widely notable, you're correct. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length lists 5534 FAs and if this were to be added to the list it would be 5534th in terms of length, which troubles me in terms of being confident it is complete. I am thinking that when she was on the rise (OLTL time) local press on the north side might have covered her. I am not talking about the Chicago Tribune or even the Chicago Sun-Times, which cover the whole city and are national, if not international publications, but maybe the Daily Herald, might have done some biographical summary. I'd be surprised if they did not cover her before Spidey. Also, the Pioneer Press has an Evanston newspaper, that probably covered her early. Try to figure out the earliest coverage each of these gave her.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to be mixing up size an length. Nonetheless, this is a short article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve done extensive research searching for sources from before 2016 (which is when she began to gain widespread notability after her casting announcement in Spider-Man). The sources are so few and far between that I’ve used all reliable sources that added information to this article. There are no local newspapers or outlets in or around Chicago that have covered her before 2017. There may have been newspaper articles but if there were, nothing is online. In regards to the article length, I still believe that it’s sufficient as it meets all Featured Article criteria. There is no FA requirement for length. Three other editors reviewed this as I said and it was never an issue. If you’d like, you could try messaging or contacting other editors to inquire about this. I’ll also contact other editors or post asking about the article’s length. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that content is not online does not give you a free pass at WP:FA. Several of my FAs required trips to the library. E.g., "Here We Go Again" (Ray Charles song) did not make it until I could find content regarding the Duncan and Clark versions. The WP:WPVA FAs always take trips to the library. I bet she likely got coverage before Spidey in at least one of the two sources I pointed you to. You may have to make phone calls. Try contacting the Evanston Public Library as well. They might even do some legwork for prefame content for you.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: It is odd but all that we know is that the director cut her out due to feeling the character was irrelevant for his vision of the film, and to cut down on the film's length. That's literally all that's known to the public. There were no rumors or talk of there being bad behavior from Harrier, or anyone for that matter, that caused her to pull out of the project or anything. It just seems like she was cut and that's all. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the back of my mind, I am thinking maybe she did some diva crap that pissed someone off, but there are no stories about her being a diva, I guess. It just does not make sense to me given the significance of the role in the WP plot summary.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources of her ever displaying diva or mean behavior towards anyone. One of the libraries got back to me and the librarian searched through all of the newspaper archives in Chicago and surrounding areas, including Evanston among others. There are no articles on Harrier pre-Spider-Man. Nothing even came up for One Life to Live. Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPL or EPL?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Public Library. EPL hasn’t gotten back to me yet. Factfanatic1 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ask the respondent to confirm that these databases include the Daily Herald and Pioneer Press newspapers.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The librarian confirmed earlier that she searched all local newspapers, but I just emailed asking her specifically about these two newspapers specifically and she should get back to me within 12 hrs to 24 hrs to verify. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Yes, the librarian confirmed that there are no newspaper articles about Harrier in both the Daily Herald and Pioneer Press pre-Spider-Man. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is truly surprising. Do we consider yearbooks reliable sources of information? I am wondering if EPL has Evanston Township High School yearbooks. Have you heard back from EPL yet?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EPL hasn't gotten back to me but they also seem to be presently either short-staffed or inactive due to the current pandemic. But what would a yearbook add to this article? We already know Harrier attended Evanston Township High School and we know when she started, 2004, and when she graduated, 2008. We know that she took drama classes (which I put in the article recently) and that she started modeling at 17. The yearbook wouldn't have any pertinent information, as far as I can tell. Factfanatic1 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by pertinent information. My thinking was that the NYU is a pretty good school and many people who are admitted are well rounded. We could find out she was in the honor society, a club (debate, chess, drama, math), a team (dance, track, or any other sport), stage crew, student government, or was a photographer. I don't know. I've dug in a lot of places to find content. Maybe we find out what her earliest dramatic roles were. I know you are trying to get me to support. I am trying to get you to reconsider whether your work is complete. Post-fame has Harrier ever discussed her earliest dramatic experiences? It is hard for me to believe she went from acting classes to OLTL. Do you really believe that is her true biography? acting class to OLTL???!!!??? I doubt even you believe that is the complete story. My closest experience to what you are doing is with Emily Ratajkowski. Before I got involved in her biography, it was commonly stated that her first acting role was the first was iCarly, until I dug up the Match Girl and Harry Potter stuff.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that the article seems to have been expanded by 20 or 25%. I am much more comfortable with the level of detail now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the library about perhaps obtaining a copy of the yearbook. I have been to numerous libraries in my life recently and all of the libraries had no school yearbooks unless it was from years back. I'm not sure if you read over the "Early life" section but Harrier had a speech impediment as a small child which her mother, a speech pathologist, cured for her daughter. Laura was still shy so her mother enrolled her in acting classes to help her gain more confidence. In high school Laura continued taking acting classes though she didn't consider herself a "theatre kid" and was more into "partying and boys." At 17, she was discovered by her mom's friend, who was a location scout, and began modeling. She modeled for catalog while in Illinois from 17 to 18 and then moved to NYC where she continued modeling after deferring and not attending NYU. She was signed by Wilhelmina Models, Elite Model Management, Muse Model Management, and most recently was (and may still be) signed by IMG Models, which are all prestigious modeling agencies and managements, as I'm sure you know. She modeled for Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Glamour, and for companies like Urban Outfitters, Forever 21, Target, Macy's etc. She appeared in several commercials (including for Garnier) and did student films by her friends and fell in love with acting and decided to study acting at the William Esper Studio, from 2013 to 2015. Either before or while she was in her first year at William Esper she auditioned for and booked the role of Destiny Evans in OLTL. And then a while after guest starred on Unforgettable, was cast in the AMC pilot Galyntine, then had a small role in The Last Five Years, all in 2014. In 2015 she appeared in 4th Man Out and director Steve McQueen cast her in (what seems to be) a principal role in his HBO pilot Codes of Conduct. And I did some research and she's been signed with ICM Partners since 2015, and likely before then. It's reasonable to believe that through her doing a lot of modeling and then working her way up to sign with elite modeling agencies, and then going to a pretty respected acting school would help her then land her role in OLTL. I mean, she had quite a good resume prior to starting acting professionally. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Pioneer Press's Evanston Review has not profiled her, no. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know this?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough search using what’s available currently and looking through archives such as Wayback Machine, and the Chicago Public Library verified this. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to research the Evanston Review prior to the 2014 Chicago Tribune acquisition. How did you do it? Also, I thought that the Chicago Public Library verified the early stuff did not exist.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit

First up, I think there is enough material to make a Featured Article out of. It is after midnight here and I was about to go to sleep but had a quick scan of the article:

  • Prose looks okay at first glance, though I need to revisit when less tired.
  • The lead strikes me as too short, though I am looking on a widescreen monitor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 4:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you for taking the time to review. I just edited and added to the lead. Let me know what you think. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks much better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Please let me know if there’s anything else I should modify or improve upon. Factfanatic1 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Montanabw

edit

I was asked to take a look at this. I may not have time to do a full review, but at first glance, I concur with Cas Liber: the article itself is long enough, though there might be more material to add (but don’t throw in cruft for its own sake) and someone’s level of notability isn’t really a criterion for FAC, which is about article quality (many obscure historic figures have featured articles). But the lede is not quite a complete summary — a more filled-out lede is we usually see for a FA-class article. I’d say clean up all the stuff the others have raised, particularly the kind of nitpicky formatting stuff (which does matter), and maybe build put the lede another paragraph or so, and it will be better. Montanabw(talk) 14:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gen. Quon

edit

I too was asked to look at this, and I concur with what Cas Liber and Montanabw have said about the length; it is short, but well-written and sourced. I do also agree with what Montanabw said about the lede, and I think that it needs to be expanded (~three times its size?) before this article goes further. One note: it seems that she's pretty big into social and political activism. I wonder if this section can be somewhat increased? I feel like there's a lot of material there to work with, and I'd be interested in reading more about her thoughts on socio-political issues. This is just a thought to expand the article a bit, and I do not think that such an expansion is required or crucial. I'll try to provide a more thorough review in the coming days if this is still open, but alas, right now I'm kinda swamped with IRL stuff.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: Thank you. I made the lede significantly longer. In regards to her thoughts on socio-political issues, not much else can really be said apart from what she posts on social media, namely her Instagram (but of course, Instagram isn't considered a reliable source so it'd be difficult). Let me know. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short source review by Fowler&fowler

edit

I'm going away on vacation and will not be returning to answer questions, nor casting a vote on promotion. These comments are offered on a take it or leave it basis:

Section 1
  • (Sentence 1) Laura Ruth Harrier12 was born on March 28, 1990 in Chicago, Illinois, and was raised in Evanston, Illinois.[3]
  • [1] and [2] are websites of modeling agencies. They say, "Laura Ruth, 5' 9 ".
  • Her name in the movies is the important name here. I wonder if the following are better sources:
  • "was born on March 28, 1990 in Chicago, Illinois, and was raised in Evanston, Illinois.3," which is a video of an appearance on the Chicago ABC TV station, accompanied by a few sentences.
  • Not seeing the date of birth. Only a blurb about "born in Chicago and raised in Evanston" accompanying the video
  • Can we use this source? The general (but not citable) evidence from the real estate data (Realty and Building, volume 102, 1989 and in 1995) suggests that she could have lived in Lake View, Chicago during her first five years. In other words, can we put in a sentence such as this, from a source such as this, when the facts (for which we have only highly suggestive information) might be different? We need a water tight source both for date of birth and "born in," and "raised in," in my view.
  • (Sentence 2):She is biracial with a black father, Temujin Harrier, and a white mother, Linda (née Sagan), of Polish and English descent.456
  • Is [4] Familytron a reliable source?
  • in [5] where are you seeing father is "Black?" It is mostly about her make-up routine. She says "mixed," and her mother being White not knowing what to do with her hair. Cherry picking "mother is White" in a story about make-up and using no other information from it, is WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, the source contradicts sentence 1 above; she says, "When I was little I lived in Chicago, and then later my family and I moved to a suburb just north—Evanston, where Northwestern is."
  • [6] says, "Harrier was raised in the suburbs of Evanston, Illinois, and serendipitously became a model at 17 after she came home from school one day to find a photo shoot happening in her house, and the photographer took a liking to her. She moved to New York City."
  • "Suburbs of Evanston?"
  • "A photo shoot was happening in her house?" For whom and why? No other information is offered.
  • Much later [6] says, "Harrier herself is biracial. Her father is African-American, and her mother is of Polish and English descent. (How did this magazine divine that information? Did she tell them? There is no information.)
  • The reliable story about the family, at least one half, is:
  • Her maternal grandmother Margaret Pickett Sagan was the daughter of J. Waskom Pickett. Her maternal grandfather, John Sagan, was a VP and Treasurer of the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan. They met at Ohio Wesleyan University. They were noted for their philanthropy, (especially Meg Sagan). Useful files for the maternal family tree, to the extent it is relevant, can be found and cited in an non-OR way in: page 28, page 18, page 28, Newspaper Obit (not paid). Her maternal uncle Scott Sagan is a political scientist at Stanford and received an honorary doctorate from OWU The OWU citation at the commencement has more details about the family.
  • Less is known about the father's family. An aunt Franchee Harmon wrote a book Making Purpose Work: The Challenge of Growing Ourselves and Our Companies, in which LH and her brother are thanked, but citing this would be OR (The father went to Columbia College and then Benedectine University. The mother studied at Ohio Wesleyan and then received an MA in Speech Pathology at Western Michigan University. This is in reliable sources, but making the connection to parents of LH would be OR.)
  • Anyway, to reduce a complex family history to binaries of black and white, especially English and Polish, on such evidence is problematic in my view.
  • Another useful source is:
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you so much for everything! I made sure to include most to everything. Again, thank you! Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't forget to link in Elite Model Management somehow.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put both Wilhemina Models and Elite Model Management. Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why only 2 of the 4 that you mentioned above?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of the four modeling agencies you mean? Two of the four what? Factfanatic1 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: If you're talking about using only Wilhemina Models and Elite Model Management, but not Muse Models and IMG Models, it's because the sources for the latter are lacking but she was definitely represented by them. Muse Models has shared several posts on their official Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tumblr pages, and there are several user forums online talking about her being with Muse. Laura has also tagged Muse Models on her Instagram and Twitter on her official accounts, but of course Wikipedia doesn't allow social media or forums to be used as reliable sources. In regards to IMG Models, she has her own IMG Models page but it's blank here: [3] and the agency has advertised her work on their Facebook and Instagram and their official website, such as here: [4], but the strange thing is when you search for her under the agency's clients, she's missing: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Also, I've been following Harrier for four years now when it was announced she'd be starring in Spider-Man back in 2016 and I vividly remember Harrier having an IMG Models page with her name and some modeling work she'd done but it seems to have been wiped from the Internet, and I remember IMG posting on their Facebook and Instagram about her back in 2017 and 2018 (for her magazine work promoting the film) but it's all been wiped it seems. Harrier also posted on her Twitter and Instagram about being with IMG Models and tagged them but it's either been removed (Harrier often deletes posts from Twitter and Instagram) or I'd have to go through each and every one of her posts to show you but that could literally take hours and in any case social media isn't considered reliable to this site anyway. I'm lucky I even found her pictures for Wilhelmina Models and Elite Model Management. That's why I didn't include the other two because she was definitely at one point represented by Muse and IMG, but they're not considered reliable sources. Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the wayback machine?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did try Wayback Machine with various keywords and nothing came up. When I just typed in her name, "Laura Harrier", there were numerous random links that didn't actually include her name. I tried searching through the archive of IMG Models's client pages on their websites from the past and I couldn't find Harrier. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick remarks from TRM

edit
  • Tables need proper sourcing.
  • Tables need to be compliant with MOS:ACCESS.

I can review this in more detail if required. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: When you say that the tables need proper sourcing, what do you mean? Ever project listed in both tables have been sourced under the "Career" section for Harrier. I went over this with one or two other editors and it was fine. I'm also confused when you say that tables need to be compliant. Aren't both tables already compliant with MOS:ACCESS? Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every line item should be properly referenced, inline. And no, I'm seeing row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why every line has to be referenced when everything has reliable sourcing within the article? I'm also confused by what exactly you mean by row and col scopes; how am I supposed to construct the tables? Jennifer Lawrence and Julianne Moore have identical table constructions to Harrier's and they're featured articles. Could you explain please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

edit

I found enough redundancy in the lead alone to suggest this article should not be at FAC until it is independently copy edited. These are some examples:

  • She then moved to New York City
  • short-lived one season reboot ... one season is short lived, and missing hyphen
  • major film debut ... major is an overused word
  • recognition ... recognition, twice in two sentences
  • portraying portraying portrayal
  • also ... almost always redundant
  • then followed ... department of redundancy department.

These are my edits to the lead only.. Feel free to revert, but this article was not and is not FAC ready, and should be withdrawn so that others can collaborate off-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article also needs a serious sourcing check. The publishers are not as they say, and not all the sources are reliable. What is Familytron and what makes it reliable? This needs review throughout.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi, in closing this I'll echo the suggestions above re. the FAC mentoring scheme and PR, and note that per FAC instructions there's a minimum two-week wait before (re)nominating this or any other article here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2020 (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/Laura_Harrier/archive1&oldid=1074820929"