Talk:Jeff Baena

Married in 2020 or 2021?

I've found conflicting sources. This article by CBS News says Baena and Plaza married in 2021 on their 10 year anniversary, and this interview with Plaza verifies they married on their 10 year anniversary, which should be 2021 since they got together in 2011. A few other sources also correspond with this like Harper's Bazaar. However this article by GQ says they married in 2020. I'm more inclined to believe the year 2021, but thoughts? jolielover♥talk 17:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

From a Plaza interview I recall, she said they married right after 'the COVID lockdown', which to me implies 2020 but is still unclear, especially depending on where they were living.

Of course, unless there is a source that quotes either of them giving a specific year (and ideally it would also address the discrepancy, i.e. a "we married in 2020 but only mentioned it in 2021"), or perhaps a source deemed 'superior' to others – e.g. by publication date or a plausible connection that would make it reasonably more authoritative than other sources (which seem to by and large be going off when Plaza first mentioned it) – then we must use what is stated by the majority of reliable sources, which looks to be 2021. This can (in the article body, not infobox) be accompanied by a footnote with some explanation of the lack of clarity and other sources suggesting 2020. Kingsif (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Information about his death

As per the recent death template, initial information about the death may be unreliable. Information published in celebrity gossip websites and other publications with low editorial standards are more likely to be inaccurate. Due to the importance of publishing true and accurate information, and holding the most respect for Baena's family, references to the circumstances surrounding the death should come from sources which are more credible. SW1APolitico (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

just for my own edification, what other examples of "low editorial standards" would Wiki categorize as being? The same info citing a 'law enforcement source' is out on People Magazine as well but personally I wouldn't rate them much higher than TMZ...would that also be of low standard? Thx Toastt21 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeff Baena/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 04:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to review this article. Please expect my review soon. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

initial checks

• Earwig gives 23.1% chance of copyvio, which is from just one quote.
• There was previously a high amount of editing after his death, which seems to have quelled by now.
• File:Jeff Baena.jpg Y
• File:Jeff Baena (12097228364).jpg Y
• File:Jeff Baena, Director of Horse Girl (50392850821) (cropped).jpg Y
• File:Jeff Baena & Aubrey Plaza 01 (cropped).jpg Y

• @Actuall7: Note that this discussion at the talkpage for Plaza could be relevant to the infobox here. Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

lead

• No issues.

Early life and education

• Some links can be removed per WP:OL, such as New York City and alchemy.

•  Done

• After Killian High School -> After attending Killian High School

•  Done

• Is the without really intending necessary?

• Rephrased - not especially necessary but an interesting way of getting an additional bit of degree (also added wikilink to academic minor, a rare thing outside the US and with "minor" meaning various other things) Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Career

• I think some links such as production assistant, editor, and personal assistant can be removed as they are quite simple.

•  Done except production assistant, which I think is not known (or, at least, understood) enough Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• By 2005 it had become a cult hit, soon finding a place in the pop culture zeitgeist, and in 2023 Robbie Collin and Tim Robey wrote that it was one of the best box-office bombs, citing its rewatchability two decades later. -> Could this be rewritten to flow better? Perhaps: By 2005, it had become a cult hit, soon finding a place in the pop culture zeitgeist; in 2023, Robbie Collin and Time Robey of The Telegraph wrote about its rewatchability and that it was one of the best box-office bombs.

• Rewritten in a different way - the only bit I don't like is starting successive sentences with year phrases (reads a bit like a "then and then" list instead of prose), but I think it's okay, and perhaps more digestible. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• There are a few instances of refbombing on some sentences, would it be possible to reduce the number of refs? Three refs in some sentences are fine, but the sentences with four refs should be reduced.
• In general, some sentences have way too many refs and should be split up into multiple sentences or have refs removed. Eg: The philosophical I Heart Huckabees was noted for the ambition in its storytelling;[17][18][19][20] it was not a commercial success,[21][22] and polarized critics.[20][23]

• Taking the above two points together: for the fragment The philosophical I Heart Huckabees was noted for the ambition in its storytelling, while I would otherwise argue that this warrants 4 refs to demonstrate that 'ambition in its storytelling' is considered notable across a variety of critics, the sources include a retrospective piece (i.e. carries more weight) and a NYT article that is subscription-only, so I have cut it to 3 refs. The Variety review is also a hard-to-read old archive copy, and may be an option to remove. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Otherwise, that sentence, for WP:V, needs the appropriate refs in the relevant places - and it doesn't make sense to turn a fragment like "it polarized critics" into a separate sentence. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• I understand, but I hope you'll agree that having too many refs in a single sentence makes it hard to read and janky. For example, this sentence is quite long: Reviews were impressed with how well the concept worked,[59][60][61][62] and praised Baena's comedic direction,[63][64][65] with Mick LaSalle writing that "Baena combines a zany comic vision with a rare control of tone. [...] There's no winking or nudging, no straining for laughs. Baena devised the material, and he trusts it."[66], and has over eight refs. I agree that there should be refs in the necessary places for WP:V, but maybe reduce refs in sentences such as this one, as the info and reception of his films should be in his film's respective article anyways. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Actually, would an easy way to reduce the way it looks when there are many refs in a single line be by using notes? For example, in the first paragraph of Robert de Niro's article, it uses a note to say "Attributed to multiple references". Obviously we don't want to use too many notes to avoid being repetitious, but I think it would be good strictly for the sentences with 3/4 refs (but not all). What do you think? actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've done something like this, at this instance. Other instances of 3+ refs together are:

• Sentence beginning Baena and Brie were among the producers for - the only three refs for the sentence, all at the end, to source the producers of three projects.
• Fragment which was generally praised - as there are minimal refs in the rest of the sentence, and again the sourcing requirement for such a statement, the 3 refs feels acceptable.
• Main bulk of sentence from while critics acknowledged - at the end of the sentence, main 3 refs, and to source critical overview and relation to Hollywood broadly and for frequent topics, this number of refs realistically seems minimum necessary.
• Sentence beginning He ended up with a group of frequent collaborators - uses four refs for the sentence, at end of sentence, to source having frequent collaborators and five actors each appearing in four films. I previously cut this down from a longer list, and those are the refs required.
• In these instances, also, various refs are those used multiple times elsewhere so an efn would be needed to bundle them, at which point I would change the bundled refs I've just added to also use efn format. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks better, thank you for your work. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• an indie adaptation of the Ernest Hemingway memoir A Moveable Feast. -> Why is the link to A Moveable Feast repeated twice?

• Whoops, have just realised that it links differently, my bad. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 02:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• played a version of himself -> played a fictionalised version of himself

•  Done

• Between the production of Life After Beth from 2003 to its release in 2014, is there no information on anything Baena did during that time.

• Meet the Fockers, and then everything in the "Before he began directing..." paragraph - there's probably more he did, too, but little gets reported (and, by now, retained) about working scriptwriters churning out rewrites and proposals for pay but few credits. I figured it was important to mention when Life After Beth was written at the point in the article discussing when it was made, but if the issue is it reads like we don't know what he did for the decade in between, this can be amended. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Baena's third film, a 2017 black comedy, The Little Hours also starred Plaza -> Could this be rewritten to flow better?

• Rewritten a bunch around this for flow, including removing the below. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• he wrote in a Reddit AMA that he "made this movie for [Plaza]" -> This doesn't feel necessary to include, especially since its cited to Reddit, so it should be removed.

•  Done, yep, an attempt to segue more naturally into the info about producers, but rewriting has also resolved the need for such. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• all of which were executive produced by the Duplass Brothers. -> all of which were executively produced by the Duplass Brothers.

• No. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• The link to form leads to a list, please specify which narrative form it should be.

• The intended target is to the concept of narrative form. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Then is it really necessary? A link to the concept of narrative form seems far too vague to actually help readers understand anything. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Removed - I try not to expect too much subject specific knowledge from readers, so I think it may have been helpful (the link has a definition of form at the top) at least in distinguishing form from style (or, generally, because form can mean different things), but then I read the sentence and it's quite a subject-focused one anyway, so in context you probably understand or don't, as you say. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Is there no further information of what Baena did between 2022 to 2025?

• I think at some point Alex Ross Perry mentioned Baena was writing something. Maybe in 2023? But no, he was probably writing stuff and it wasn't getting picked up - so not in the news. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• The tone in the Style section has a few sentences which lean on a respectful/admiring view of Baena (critics appreciated the attention and care Baena gave, he prided himself). While that is to be expected as most refs are following his death and thus try to be positive, try to make it more neutral.

• I'll look it over, but those examples you give, are not NPOV issues. Summarising critics' views into generally positive/negative is often done (whether appropriate/suitable here is another question and good point on that), and the other one is a direct and attributed quote (also "X prides himself on Y" is just to say "Y is very important to X", suggesting neither pride nor approval from the author's perspective). Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, tbh I was just worried that the Style section might've been considered not neutral as some of the sourcing used articles after his death, which would tend to put him in a positive light. Looking at it again, this section is fine, so sorry for worrying over something like this. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 02:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this quote: "John [C. Reilly], Aubrey [Plaza] ... dialogue if they have to.", feels like unnecessary praise by him to these actors. Don't really see the point of including it as it isn't even focused on Baena.

• Honestly an attempt at getting (and in Baena's words) that Reilly was one of his frequent collaborators sourced, as they only did two projects together, and (again in Baena's words) what he looked for in his main group of actors. If it can't be rewritten well, it can probably be removed - people know these actors. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note that I have done some more edits to the Style section, which also touch on the above points. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just wanted to ask, as I am unfamiliar with the sourcing in this area, but does the table of frequent collaborators need to be referenced?

• Ah, well, that's debated. Some people think that, like a cast list in a film article, the audio-visual works cite themselves. Others treat it as any other article-limited table, i.e. anything not referenced in the body text needs a citation.

  Given the mix of information here - it includes films Baena acted in but did not write/direct (so there's less information on those in the prose), and someone like Luis Fernandez-Gil (who appears in smaller roles that probably need a source in any situation) - some things probably need refs, but not all of it (i.e. Plaza and Brie collaborations are very well covered in prose). Let's see what we can do. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've now added one or two main refs to the columns for work titles, which source all or most of the cast for each project. Where an actor on the list isn't named in the main refs, a ref that does source their role has been added to the intersecting cell. Fernandez-Gil was less of a problem than anticipated, too. Getting these sources has actually led to some of the character names being changed and a role added for Jake Johnson, interestingly enough! Kingsif (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Looks good, thanks for your hard work getting it all cited! actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal life and death

• No issues, well-written and neutral in my opinion.

Filmography

• Could use Template:abbr for the ref column of the table: Ref..

•  Done

• Could also use level 1 headers for the film, acting roles, television, etc headers.

• Done a variation of this, as 1 television and 2 (minor) acting roles don't warrant their own headers IMHO. Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Other than that, well-sourced. Will check more in-depth during the source rev.

Accolades

• No issues.

Will do source review next, after above is addressed. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing everything so quickly, will move onto source review next. Not sure how free I will be in the coming days, so sorry if it takes a while. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, replied to the last few comments. Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I tend to review all the sources, so I'll do these in groups depending on how much free time I have. I ask for your patience during this time. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 02:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Just a suggestion, which you honestly don't have to do because it's very nitpicky, but the films in the news titles should be italicised.
• Another suggestion, some sources could be archived.

As of this revision:

• [1] & [2] Y: Cosmopolitan's reliability is currently mixed, and the use of it to cite his birthdate and birth place is a little suspect, but the Legacy.com article confirms it, so I suppose it is fine to keep.
• [3] Y: [3]e does not actually state that he directed "Familiesgiving", but I supposed that it's fine.

• I've also added a ref I believe sources the episode title. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• [4] & [5] Y
• [6] Y
• [7] Y
• [8] Y
• [9] Y
• [10] Y: Put Atkinson, Emily as author.

•  Done

• [11] Y: Link doesn't work, status should be changed.

•  Done

• [12] Y
• [13]  On hold: How is this YouTube ref reliable? Not sure if it fulfils WP:RSPYT through BUILD Series, so could you elaborate on its reliability?

• BUILD Series is a live series that has film journalists interview cast and crew of films, with a studio audience. IIRC it was originally run by Yahoo! but is now its own brand (possibly still under the wider Yahoo! company?). It is not some anonymous person talking about movies, but a reputable outlet employing reputable subject journalists (chosen based on their interests, usually, depending on the film genre), directly interviewing creatives involved in the production. (Side thought is that honestly, RSPYT desperately needs an update, in the post-podcast and especially post-COVID world, YouTube is being used so much by genuine outlets as a host for live content.) Kingsif (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your explanation about BUILD Series, and I myself got the impression that it was reputable when I first watched it, just wanted some background on it first. I would recommend adding the timestamps with Template:rp's in-source location parameter. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on overlap for timestamp among the instances of the ref, and that it would become a very long superscript, I've added a location parameter to the ref template. Kingsif (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Y: Info confirmed. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• [14] Y
• [15] Y
• [16] Y
• [17] Y
• [18] Y: Title can be shortened to "I Heart Huckabees Review".

•  Done

• [19] Y
• [20] Y: Title can be shortened to "I Heart Huckabees DVD (2004)". The author should also be Papamichael, Stella.

•  Done

• [21] Y
• [22] Y
• [23] Y: Should the URL access level be "registration/limited"?

•  Done

• [24] Y
• [25] Y: While this source isn't the most reliable, it's an interview and the entire website consists of articles written by one person, I suppose it is alright to verify this claim.
• [26] Y: Author should be Hershey, Nick. The title should also be formatted with apostrophes (Eg: "Bourne's", "Pirates 3", "300")

•  Done

• [27] Y
• [28] Y: URL access level should be changed to "subscription"

•  Done

• [29] Y
• [30] Y: This source has similar issues to [25]. Not saying these have to be removed, but should be replaced with reliable sources moving forward.
• [31] Y
• [32] N: [32]a doesn't outright say he portrayed himself, just that he starred in the film. This info is confirmed in [33], so maybe just remove this ref?

•  Done

• [33] Y
• [34] Y
• [35] Y
• [36] Y
• [37] Y
• [38] Y
• [39] Y
• [40] Y
• [41] Y
• [42] Y: This is another YouTube ref, and I have already confirmed the information in it, but can you also provide some context on this source?

• @Actuall7: Yep, this is actually an interesting one. You can see that it's at Kristin McCracken's YouTube channel - she's a film festival consultant. She generally does interviews about "why X film for Y festival?" in a sort of branding way, but has also worked in a journalist capacity. The interview in this video initially had parts included in an article about Baena's festival debut at The Playlist, which is affiliated with IndieWire and so, when the movie was later released, the Playlist article seems to have disappeared and been repurposed into this IndieWire article, which doesn't contain (written) everything from the video (though does embed the video). Basically, it's IndieWire: Extra Content. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• [43] Y
• [44] Y
• [45] Y
• [46] Y
• [47] Y
• [48] Y: URL access level should be "subscription".

•  Done

• [49] Y
• [50] Y
• [51] Y
• [52] Y
• [53] Y: URl access level should be "subscription".

•  Done

• [54] Y
• [55] Y
• [56] Y
• [57] Y
• [58] Y: Author should be Enlow, Courtney.

•  Done

• [59] Y
• [60] Y: The RogerEbert.com source should have the author as Tallerico, Brian and the Chicago Tribune source should be Phillips, Michael. The Chicago Tribune source should also have its URl access level changed to "subscription".

•  Done

Will complete my source review early for now. I know I said I would do all the sources, but I have recently fallen sick, which is also why I was offline yesterday. Will put on hold for now while issues are addressed. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also do note that the sources above are according to the revision listed above, which does not include the sources you recently added. Hope this clears up any confusion. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Actuall7: Totally understand, sickness sucks - and that's how I do my source reviews, too, so totally understand x2 Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response and patience throughout this review, I've checked the article again and edited some refs. I haven't noticed any more outstanding issues, so will be promoting now, good job! actuall7 (talk | contrib) 00:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron talk 08:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that filmmaker Jeff Baena accidentally earned a minor in medieval studies at film school?
  • ALT1: ... that a car crash led to Jeff Baena co-writing I Heart Huckabees with his boss?
  • ALT2: ... that Jeff Baena made his directorial debut about a decade after writing the film, because agents told his girlfriend about it?
  • ALT3: ... that although Jeff Baena wanted to avoid his films being categorized into genres, he was associated with mumblecore?
  • ALT4: ... that , despite being a working screenwriter for a decade, Jeff Baena preferred not to write complete scripts and was critical of his writing ability?
  • ALT5: ... that director Jeff Baena helped a friend clear his garden and acted in the movie about it?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Messe de minuit pour Noël
  • Comment: Some hooks more quirky, some more focused on just interesting film facts - I have preferences but please choose depending on what might be needed for sets. Sources in article. And though this was nominated for GA months ago, since it’s been passed now, is it possible to request a special occasion hook date for June 29, a few weeks away on what would’ve been his birthday?

Improved to Good Article status by Kingsif (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 137 past nominations.

Kingsif (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was upgraded to GA today. All of the hooks are good and interesting, with the first one as the best IMO. Nothing stopping this from becoming a DYK. I will ping @Z1720: and @RoySmith: to answer your question about the June 29 posting. Jon698 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsif:

@Jon698: Thank you for the quick review! Sounds good to me :) Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jon698: as the reviewer, if you think this is appropriate to run on June 29, you can move it to WP:SOHA. The birthday is cited in the article, and I don't mind biographies running on the birthday. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)