Talk:Hope Solo/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
Early life
The WPS Years, 2009–2011
International career

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

I understand your concern. However, when you do a google image search for her there are plenty of results that suggest she is a sex symbol. I am just asking you to be comprehensive in your biography and I think including a summary of her role as a sex symbol is a part of what you should do to achieve the proper balance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that you attempted to request a 2nd opinion. This is a procedure for a reveiwer (not a nominator). If it were available to nominators, they would shop their reviews. It is up to you to convince me that she is not a sex symbol and that such assertions would be inappropriate in a biography. In my google image search. The first row has her Body Issue cover photo. The second row has her Body Issue inside photo as well as a Fitness magazine bikini photo. The third row has af Fitness mag cover photo of her in a bikini. The fourth row has an Olympics.com booty shot. Admittedly the Fitness mag images were modest, but combine this with the sex symbol links presented above and it points to an affirmative on the sex symbol front. Convince me that she is not one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's review what the instructions are for reviewing good articles. Per WP:RGA:
      • About the process: "The nominator is the person who listed the article at the Good article nominations page. It is not a special position, does not indicate that the person has had any involvement in improving the article, and the nominator has no duty to participate in the review. All editors at the article are encouraged to participate on an equal basis, but no one is required to participate in the review or interact with the reviewer."
      • Mistakes to avoid in reviews: When reviewing, focus on providing the best review you can for that article. Take care not to be distracted by whether related top-level articles are lackluster, or let frustration over how many articles there are covering a given topic area show through. [...] Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria. In particular, the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability and the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style page. As you are determining whether an article is complete, well-written, properly sourced, etc., you may find it useful to consult various community-wide guidelines or advice pages from WikiProjects."
        I think if you want to add this, go for it. Otherwise, you're imposing a very subjective condition for passing this review that is not supported by any guideline I have seen. See the disputes section for more information. While I appreciate the work you've put forth thus far, I think it may be time to seek additional outside opinion if you're not even willing to add it yourself. Hmlarson (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for butting in. From reading through the comments I think we're in danger of getting a bit preoccupied with a non-issue. The quote from Solo in the current article seems to address the matter pretty fully - we don't want the section to say "Solo purports not to be a sex symbol but has undressed numerous times in such and such magazines." I mean, readers can see what she looks like from the infobox; if they want to go off and google for bikini pictures I'm sure they can do that without us listing all the sources. Anyway, it's only tangential to notability (she'd be an equally decorated goalkeeper if she had a face like a warthog!) and this on its own shouldn't hold up passing the article. Just my two cents... Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I see in the article is statements that she has appeared on magazine covers, that she was semi-nude in The Body Issue, that she does not feel she is a sex symbol based on this appearance. However, it does not mention that she has been regarded as a sex symbol by numerous media sources, including Maxim, Bleacher Report, Complex, AskMen.com, and as a fashion maven by Huffington Post, StyleBistro.com, W, US Magazine and as a Spokesperson for Gatorade, Bank of America, and Nike. The article should mention her prominence as a sex symbol, fashion maven and spokesperson. Then she can state she is just an athlete. Saying she was in one magazine, but considers herself just an athlete is not a biographical summary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't you mention the DWTS controversy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems: these are all quite low-grade sources and none of them actually describe her as a "sex symbol" or whatever. We can't deduce from scantily clad pictures of her that she must be a sex symbol, that's WP:OR. This one isn't even about Solo, it's about Alex Morgan. I know it's your job as reviewer to suggest more comprehensive coverage, but – seriously – filling the article with these crappy sources is a terrible idea. It's WP:UNDUE. If we must include any "sex symbol/fashion maven" material I think it has to be attributed to some sort of recognisable authority. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complex, Bleacher Report and AskMen are all considered WP:RS; same for The Huffington Post and US Magazine. You are all free to chime in at WP:GAR should this article not be passed by me. However, I do not feel confused by the criteria or the subject matter of the article. I am fully capable of making a final decision on this article and intend to do so based on my interpretation of the only policy that matters for GAC, WP:WIAGA. I continue to believe the article fails 3a.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the article touches on her being on covers etc. in the Magazines section - if I were the author I could go either way on this, but I must admit I do feel uneasy really pushing "100 sexiest" and stuff like that if the author feels uncomfortable with it. One could quite easily argue it is subjective and quite sexually demeaning as well as unencyclopedic. i.e. If it were me reviewing, I'd be happy to leave it out...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking her to take off her clothes and pose with nothing or a bikini. She has already done that herself. I am just asking for an adequate summary of reliable sources. You are free to chime in at WP:GAR if it comes to that. Barry Bonds has been on magazine covers, but not without clothes on or in a bikini. I am just asking for a summary of what a reader might google. If I can google a handful of sources on any topic, it is fair game to request it be summarized in a bio. I have done a lot of reviews of women. I have never done one that I knew to be a sex symbol, where the nominator objected to summarizing that content for the bio.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should rephrase - I don't know the subject well enough that I would include this material one way or the other, but I think it is a grey area to the point that I feel it is unfair to be a deal-breaker for GA. status as I can see sufficient arguments for its non-inclusion.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first three athlete/sex symbol articles that I have gone to are Jennie Finch, Amanda Beard and Amy Acuff. They all have content that answers the readers questions on the issue of sex symbol/fashion maven/spokesperson/model type stuff. I'll think of a few more athlete/sex symbols and make sure Ms. Solo's article is comparable to the whole lot.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that all athlete sex symbols I can find on WP summarize their sex symbol status in their bio. The next two I looked at are Maria Sharapova and Heather Mitts. Solo is the only article I have seen for athlete/sex symbol that obscures sex symbol status. That is unsatisfactory to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? Are all of those articles Good or Featured Articles? Have they undergone any level of quality control? It may be the case that some sixteen-year-old obssessives are putting unnecessary weight on this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's borderline obsessive to insist on undue weight for some perception of sex symbol etc. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. She is principally notable for being an excellent female footballer, the magazine shoots etc are interesting but nothing much more. To withhold GA on this alone is petty. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I am insisting on is the same amount of sex symbol content as other women of the same accomplishment. Why should her bio not include the same amount of content as other bios about women who are sex symbols?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that, by now, you should have realised that your opinion is different from the majority. This article is about a footballer, not a sex symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me at this point we have at least three options going forward:
  • Tony fails the review. It's re-listed and reviewed by another editor.
  • As nominator, I withdraw the review. It's re-listed and reviewed by another editor.
  • Tony decides to edit the article to incorporate his minority view and approves the review or just approves the article in its current state.
Is this your understanding of potential options as well? Are there others that are not being considered? Hmlarson (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incorrect. In order to renominate without editing after a failed GAC, you must nominate it at WP:GAR. If you want to renominate at GAC, you must make substantive edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if you choose to withdraw and re-list, at any time I have a right to do an individual GAR and delist it, if I feel that you were just shopping the review without either attempting to address the concerns or attempting to pursue a GAR ruling in your favor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, all the rules are set up to avoid review-shopping. You will basically, either have to address my concerns, convince me my concerns are irrelevant, convince someone else (including me) to address the concerns, get a GAR ruling that my concerns are not significant, or withdraw the nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a GAR ruling would be a determination of whether the version of the article that I fail was properly failed. I.e., whether it was failed for a reason that is WP:WIAGA policy based and correctly reasoned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the way ahead. The obsession with girlie pics, if covered in so much more detail as is being requested, seems to fall into "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" criterion of WP:WIAGA. Not to mention, in its current form, the article actually already "addresses the main aspects of the topic". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are confused on what he is saying. By go to GAR, he is saying state that there are irreconcilable differences and you wish to discontinue the review. Then, I state reasons why the article fails. Then at GAR they evaluate whether my reasons are policy based and well reasoned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I glance at GA, the only sport with a lot of women who have a significant number of nude/semi-nude/bikini pics in their google image search seems to be wrestling. I think those are likely to be written as I seem to think is correct, but I think that may be a biased sample of women who make a living in part based on their looks. What other sports have a lot of women with quality articles?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Where we stand.

Most athlete/sex symbols that I have stumbled upon have a summary of media attention based on their looks. However, at GA/FA, there are only 2 or 3 such individuals. Of those, only Lauren Jackson has been widely mentioned on website listings in recognition of her physical appearance. These mentions are omitted from the current version of the article. What do we draw from a sample size of one? Has a precedent been set? What if we expand the sample a little bit. Maria Sharapova is a former GA, with very high traffic making her cloud sourcing a representation of a compendium of opinions. Her article includes references to sexiest/hottest listings. What if we expanded beyond athletics? The most recognized sex symbols at FA (Angelina Jolie, Preity Zinta and Kareena Kapoor Khan) all make note of hottest/sexiest listings in their articles. What is the objection to mentioning listings based on her physical appearance?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solo has an extensive list of celebrity endorsements that are omitted. Has the nominator stated a reason why Solo's bio should not enumerate her endorsements?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having conducted as much research throughout WP as is reasonable, I have two questions for the nominator:
  1. What is the objection to or what detriment would be caused by enumerating listings recognizing Solo for her physical appearance?
  2. What is the objection to or what detriment would be caused by enumerating the endorsements that Solo has been contracted for?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question #1: See discussion above listed under "In popular culture."
Question 2: Endorsements and Philanthropy subsections added to "Personal life." Hmlarson (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are at a crossroads. You and I have thought long and hard about my suggestion that you enumerate listings in which she was acknowledged for her physical appearance. I have suggested that you add such a listing because it would summarize secondary sources. You do not feel it is necessary and object to my suggestion. You seem to have a lot of passerby support. Some of that support might follow you to WP:GAR. I suggest we actually pursue a GAR on just this issue. My reasoning is that the universe of GAs and FAs has only one example of a "Sex symbol" athlete who has high level google image search results for nude or semi-nude (bikini) model activities and is named in numerous lists based solely on her physical appearance (Lauren Jackson}. That article does not enumerate these listings. However, just about every other sex symbol (athlete or not) that I look up has an enumeration of such lists. In fact, at FA the three purest sex symbols that I noticed all had enumerations of such lists. My thinking is that there are many readers who read such lists and are interested in that subject matter. Thus, if we don't summarize it, we are doing something wrong.

However, the only valid argument that I can see against its inclusion is that she is a marginal sex symbol in the sense in that she has never been the sexiest or hottest on any list. The numerous sex symbol articles other than Jackson that I might point you to all enumerate such listings (Angelina Jolie, Maria Sharapova, Mila Kunis, Marisa Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Preity Zinta, Jennie Finch, Kareena Kapoor Khan, etc.). Since Ms. Solo does not seem to have ever been ranked atop any of the listings she has been included in, a listing may seem less important. However, I think the better course is to seek a ruling on whether such a list should be included. I am not trying to be a hardass. I just think that WP:WIAGA 3a requires me to fail this for failure to include such a listing. It seems like a minor point, but I feel it is no less important than naming her sporting awards to some readers. If readers did not read these lists they would not be made. Thus, I am officially FAILing this based on 3a. I am fully prepared to be overruled and don't much care if I am. I am just putting it out there that virtually every sex symbol I can think of summarizes or at least highlights their sex appeal listings. I strongly suggest that you pursue a WP:GAR and wish you luck in such a remedy. Your alternatives are to make substantive edits and renominate at GAC. I don't encourage this because it is likely to lead to all kinds of battles without the issue being resolved. You seem to have support for your stance so you stand a good chance at GAR. I respect the rest of your work on this article and would otherwise pass it. Thank you for responding to all of my other concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hope_Solo/GA1&oldid=576818179"