Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Weisz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cagliost (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 18 January 2023 (→date of birth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleRachel Weisz has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 8, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2018.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rachel Weisz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my concerns at your convenience by starting a new line below each concern. I will striket my concerns as they are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel a bit of wanting for this subject. The article starts "Rachel Hannah Weisz . . . is an English film and theatre actress and fashion model." The article says nothing more than "During the final years in school, she started modelling." which is misspelled by the way. Is there any chance of finding any information about this part of her career? Who did she model for back then? Is she a current spokesperson for any fashion or cosmetics companies?
  • The article talks about her roots in theatre. Has she done any theatre work since college in West End or on Broadway. A quick scan at www.ibdb.com yields an award for The Shape of Things, which is mentioned in the article. However, in the filmography section, I think theatre work should either be separated or noted in the notes column. It is difficult for the lazy reader to determine her stage work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I find my self looking at the various roles and thinking, was she any good at this or that. Many actor biographies start to become flush with critical commentary at about the time the quality level gets to GA. We know there are a lot of critical reviews that you are not mentioning. You may want to present those rather than just run through her roles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on that aspect adding the critical acclaim for her oscar-winning performance in The Constant Gardener and for The Whistleblower--Gunt50 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
Early life and background
1992 - 1998
1999 - 2003
2004 ‐ 2009
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The same year, she rejected the offer participate in the The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor due to script issues, The role was portrayed by Maria Bello." is runon.
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2010 ‐present
  • The film made a woman in the crowd faint. Please tell us what the film was about then.
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would reword "the intense depiction in scenes of the treatment from the kidnappers to the victims" to "the intense depiction in scenes of the treatment of the victims by the kidnappers".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just reworded it. --Gunt50 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this set off with commas?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I erased the commas --Gunt50 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • which filming took place in fall 2010 -> which filmed in fall 2010
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would reword "Other of her" to "Her other". You will also want to tag this with {{asof}} so that this is flagged for updating.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Gunt50 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theatre
Awards and honours
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I erased the ]]. Was that it, champ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunt50 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • No need for redundant links for The Shape of Things
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still linked once too often in the article--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I unlinked the one in the Theatre section--Gunt50 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Gduwen (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a quality article that is on its way to FA. In order to make it there will need to be prose expansion to give the article more than a filmography chronology feel. More critical review will be needed.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Needs more critical review of roles. See Clint Eastwood or Kate Winslet, which are two I have reviewed, for example. Technically, nothing is missing from the article because the basic element of each role is put forth in an encyclopedic manner, but the reader really should be given more.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Both images need {{personality rights}} tags. The latter image needs WP:CAPTION tweaking because it is not a full sentence and thus should not end with a period.
    Both are wrong now. Read WP:CAPTION#wording. If it is not a full sentence, it should not end in a period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are now correct.--Gduwen (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold
Additional outstanding issues

Everything is looking good for WP:GA. I will pass it now. For FA you will want to add more critical commentary and of course, keep it up to date. You did well at responding. I was glad to give this one some attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

date of birth

Contrary to the Footnote the BFI does not really give 1970 as date of birth, her more detailed biography at the BFI (see [1]) actually states 1971 as the guardian does. I'm not sure regarding the comment of the registration (where does that information come from?). Has somebody actually checked the official registration (a WP author or some external source not being given currently)? If the answer to that question is yes it should be stated more clearly in the note. But if the answer is unknown or even no, that date should be changed to 1971, the figure that the guardian and the BFI (Larman's biography on screenonline) both state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Since there was no answer regarding the unsourced birh registration claim I removed it from the article and changed the date 1971, which is the date that most reliable sources carry. The few "reliable" ones that carry 1970 may have simply copied it from the (false) date in her IMDB entry.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She was born in 1970. That is a fact. Her birth was registered in 1970. That's what's on the British Birth Records, which are searchable at ancestry.com and on other sites. So, if you're legitimately pursuing factual correctness, then that's what's factually correct. Most mainstream publications who have commented on her birthdate (recently, that is) reflect this. Time Magazine interviewed her just this March, as they say, the day before her 42nd birthday. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Time Magazine is hardly an argument at all, since, as I stated in my edit, most reliable British sources (in particular including her biography at the BFI) state 1971. The Evening Standard in particular claiming that Weisz herself gives 1971 for her date of birth.
Now if however the official records do indeed show 1970 as date of birth, that would take priority of course. But that can't simply be claimed as it was before, but that requires a "proof" and correct citation (of the official record). In particular if one of our editors has checked that via ancestry.com (or some other website) then that site needs to cited (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). This is important because not any genealogy website is necessarily particularly reliable and it also depends on which official documents they used. Official compiled lists for instance may differ from the actual birth certificate (due copy errors or typos). For that even if an editor actually went to authorities to look at the public records himself, he needs to cite the exact document he used.
As I said before the majority of reliable sources did/do carry 1971 (and they can and presumably did check public records as well), so to prove them wrong one Time Magazin article is not cutting it, but we need an exact citation to the official document carrying the correct date and/or a reference to the website that was used to check an online copy of it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go to ancestry.com and check it yourself. I've already checked it there numerous times, and at http://www.findmypast.co.uk/ (although it's a lot easier to see it at ancestry). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to ancestry.com. However that doesn't change what I've said above regarding/citation and reference. In your edit you claim you've checked a copy of the actual birth certificate, but in your footnote you write it was "registers first quarter of March 1970" (presumably a list?). So which is it now?
Aside from the issue of the correct date, the the current footnote is still a bit off citing some unspecified Guardian article with a different date. I already gave a concrete guardian article and explained that the issue is not merely some Guardian article but her biography at the BFI, her NNDB entry, Associated Press and many British papers over the last decade (search via Google or Highbeam).
If we go with official registration there is no need to cite BFI database entry (while ignoring her actual biography at BFI). Similarly instead of an unspecified Guardian article, we should simply state that some publication carried a different date in the past. Keeping the Time Magazin article might be ok, to avoid the impression of original research. However it should be compiled in the first footnote (and be properly cited as well). It does make much sense compiling several sources on her date of birth into one footnote and then having an additional single source for the same purpose in a separate footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a subscription to ancestry.com. Just search for Rachel (Hannah) Weisz and limit your results to 1970; her birth was registered in the first quarter of 1970, that is what I meant. Anyone can do that search without paying for any subscription (I think). BTW, NNDB is a completely unreliable source, and, as for The Associated Press, last year they gave her age as 41 - here. So it depends on what day you're asking them. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need a subscription on ancestry.com to see to the result (and to verify the actual document used). However after restricting the search to 1 year, I'm getting indeed only one match. findmypast works slightly better without registration in that regard as it returns you 1 match for the 68-72 and list some limited data. This way we can also exclude that there is not another Rachel Weisz born in 1971. Although Rachel is not a common name, you still a few hits when searching over larger periods, so explicitly excluding 1971 is important. As far as the NNDB is concerned, I'm not arguing it is particularly reliable (I wouldn't use it as a single source for anything), but that a large number of "reliable" sources was carrying 1971 during the last decade (rather than "just some guardian article"). But be that as it may, I agree with you regarding the date of birth and the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT got fixed as well in the mean time, so from my perspective the article is fine now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go, only one Rachel Hannah Weisz born in 1970, none in 1971. Mother's maiden name is listed as "Teich" (if you search for Weisz Teich you will get the same result on ancestry.com... and her sister). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (see above) and thanks for clearing that up.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can remember I first met Rachel shortly after the start of her first year at University, i.e. September or October 1988. If she had been born in 1971, she'd have been 17 (and below legal drinking age). This was sufficiently uncommon amongst first year students that I'd have known about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.254.105 (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth is this still unresolved? The birth of Rachel Hannah Weisz, whose mother's maiden name was Teich, was registered at Westminster in the first quarter of 1970, on page 2432 of volume 5E.146.200.7.113 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the birth year because the "concluding evidence" was based on a birth registration (accessed through genealogy websites like Ancestry.com). WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:ANCESTRY.COM state against using primary sources, including birth registries and so on. As it stands, it seems like non-primary sources have given conflicting birth years. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly believe in ignoring all rules here. When there are public records (even records available in the United States) saying 1970, I think we should trust them over a few inaccurate reports. Trillfendi (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why Weisz should be an exception. If primary sources are the only definite proof then I'd wait until reliable, non-primary sources can be found sorting this out. Since the usable sources give conflicting years, I don't see why we can't leave the two years as it is. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The birth registration is for 1970. Birth registered Rachel Hannah Weisz Q1 1970, District - Westminster London. Mother's maiden name Teich. Volume 5E, page 2432. Record set: England & Wales Births 1937-2006 NewarkCastleGhost (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre to ignore a perfectly good, authoritative primary source because some magazines say differently. NewarkCastleGhost (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is straightforward to check that there were only two Rachel Weisz's born in the 1970s (one in 1970 and the other in 1974). Only one of those is called "Rachel Hannah" (the one born in 1970) and she was the only one born in Westminster. There is no risk of mis-identification here. The proper date can still be sourced through a secondary source, but the 1971 date is wrong. Does anybody here actually think the 1971 date is correct? WP:IAR is supposed to prevent the application of rules resulting in spreading misinformation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is clear which secondary sources are correct (1970) and which are false (1971), and we have consensus on this talk page. I have updated the article. cagliost (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cagliost @Betty Logan - I still think we should put both years, as the subject is still a living person, has claimed to be born in 1971, and sources have given both 1970 and 1971, with the only definitive proof appearing to be a primary source (birth index accessed via sites like Ancestry.com; WP:BLPPRIMARY). If there was a third-party source that could tackle this issue, as has been done with public figures who have been caught in "age scandals"[2] I'd feel more comfortable putting down 1970 as the sole year. But other users have brought up WP:IAR and agree in the 1970 birth year because it's what she was registered as in the UK.
Honestly, though it is just speculation on my part, it seems likely that Weisz claimed 1971 because of age fabrication, which has been especially prevalent in industries like the entertainment world for a variety of reasons (see people like Rebel Wilson, Joan Crawford and countless other examples). But obviously my opinion is irrelevant to the point at hand. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 1971 date belongs in the footnote. The secondary source BFI Database which gives 1970 says "Born Rachel Hannah Weisz. Checked birth at Family Records Centre, London. Born in Westminster, London registration district." This is more reliable than magazine articles which haven't checked birth records and are just repeating a falsehood. cagliost (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a similar situation to when multiple secondary sources falsely claimed Ronnie Hazlehurst wrote lyrics for S Club 7 [3]. Common sense should prevail. We have secondary sources for both dates, but it's clear which ones are reliable and which ones are not. That Rachel Weisz herself (according to the Evening Standard, a source of middling quality) gives the false date is interesting and perhaps belongs in the article or notes, but we are not obliged to report it as fact. cagliost (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Weisz&oldid=1134363417"