Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Zeta-Jones
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Catherine Zeta-Jones[edit]
Zeta-Jones in 2012
- ... that Catherine Zeta-Jones (pictured) was the highest-paid British actress in America in the early 2000s?
- ALT1:... that Catherine Zeta-Jones' (pictured) wedding ceremony cost an estimated £1.5 million?
- ALT2:... that Catherine Zeta-Jones' (pictured) endorsement deal with T-Mobile made her the highest-paid celebrity endorser in 2002?
- Reviewed: Supratika
Improved to Good Article status by Krimuk90 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
- Can we please have a ban on articles reciting celebrities' "accolades" and "acclaim", with special punishment for saying they have "garnered" accolades and acclaim? It sounds utterly lame. EEng 18:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- However, celebrities do garner accolades and acclaim. It's a fact. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not the facts I'm talking about, it's the stupid way of expressing it, as if a press agent had written it. EEng 01:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's just your personal opinion, isn't it? If an actress is the highest-paid actress, she just is. It's a fact, and an important one at that. If she has won an Oscar, it's a major accomplishment. I don't see any reason why it should be called "stupid". And how else is one supposed to express it? We say "she has won XXX award..." when she won that award. It's a simple statement, and there is no need to complicate it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? My point, exactly, is to use the kind of plain, straightforward phrases you just mentioned -- won the A Award or received the H Honor -- and to avoid faux-sophisticated ("complicated", as you would say) advertising copy like garnered accolades, as in the article. EEng 02:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote, she "garnered accolades", because she was named CBE as well, which isn't an award but an accolade. Please mind the context. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you miss the point entirely, but don't fret -- DYK doesn't judge writing beyond basic literacy (and sometimes not even that). EEng 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote, she "garnered accolades", because she was named CBE as well, which isn't an award but an accolade. Please mind the context. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? My point, exactly, is to use the kind of plain, straightforward phrases you just mentioned -- won the A Award or received the H Honor -- and to avoid faux-sophisticated ("complicated", as you would say) advertising copy like garnered accolades, as in the article. EEng 02:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's just your personal opinion, isn't it? If an actress is the highest-paid actress, she just is. It's a fact, and an important one at that. If she has won an Oscar, it's a major accomplishment. I don't see any reason why it should be called "stupid". And how else is one supposed to express it? We say "she has won XXX award..." when she won that award. It's a simple statement, and there is no need to complicate it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not the facts I'm talking about, it's the stupid way of expressing it, as if a press agent had written it. EEng 01:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- However, celebrities do garner accolades and acclaim. It's a fact. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)