Talk:Janice Min

Article is overly promotional

I'm concerned that this page seems to focus almost (or entirely) exclusively on accolades/awards/praise of Min. It seems unbalanced. I trimmed quite a bit of promotional content, but this article needs more work to bring it into compliance with WP:BALASPS. For example, there's the criticism of her bemoaning post-partum weight loss standards while focusing on post-baby weight loss in her publications [1] and there's "Min's success thrills people like her boss, Jann Wenner, the chairman of Wenner Media. But it's not universally trumpeted..." etc. [2]. Right now this article is looking more like a resume/awards sheet and less like an encyclopedia article. Any help in fixing it up is welcome. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft

As @Smartse: had the unfortunate experience of encountering, this article has been subjected to poor, conflicted, paid editing. The career section is filled mostly with trivial awards. The article omits significant details about a controversy about her book and it doesn't mention her $2 million pay at US Weekly, which is widely reported in numerous, credible, mainstream newspapers. This behavior is especially unfortunate for this page, since an NPOV article that is representative of reliable sources is still quite positive and depicts her as an effective (read amazing) turnaround artist for struggling publications during a period of general decline in publishing.

To the point, to address all this, I've prepared a draft at Talk:Janice_Min/draft that has one more paragraph in the early life section and a re-written career section. Was hoping someone would have some time to consider my work. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey you're alive ;)

It's certainly an improvement overall, but here are some points to address:

• Any reason to remove "was considered a poor writer." - the source seems fairly clear on this.

The current article says "she was considered a poor writer", whereas what the source actually says is "one editor" at People said she was a poor writer. I figured it made more sense to just say she "struggled" than to include an anonymous comment from a coworker like "One editor at People said she was a poor writer". Up to you though - just explaining why I didn't include it in the draft. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this was only the view of one editor - they are saying that she was considered a poor writer by everyone, rather than just giving their opinion (or at least that's how I read it). The current "struggled" is a bit unclear - struggled with what? Maybe "struggled with her writing"? SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I added "According to one of her former coworkers, she was a "poor writer"" to the draft. The text of the source is: "At first, she struggled. "Her stories read like bad wire copy," says one editor. "When you're considered a poor writer at People, you're kind of palmed off from one section to another and not given much to do. Janice would sit in her office, crying."" Please feel free to edit boldly if you'd prefer it another way. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2002 Min applied for the editor-in-chief position at Us Weekly"

The source says 2001 (as does the current article)

This source, which is what is cited in the current article, says she left her prior position in 2001, but her predecessor at US Weekly, Bonnie Fuller, was still there in 2002: "The magazine's transformation began, of course, in 2002 under the leadership of Bonnie Fuller". This New York Times piece from 2004 says "who joined Us Weekly two years ago" per WP:CALC two years ago was 2002. I don't actually see 2001 anywhere (I may have missed it if it was) David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. The part in the adweek source says "But by 2001, Min left and began yet another job search." but evidently there was some time in between leaving and starting. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• The bit about the "baby bump" craze could do with fleshing out or reorganising a little - I had to read the sources to understand. Does it need turning round - i.e. mention what she did as an editor and then mention the column?

 Done That might be better. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep looking good. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Similarly explain what Jon & Kate Plus 8 is.

 Done

Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some tenses are a bit off e.g. "Min depicts celebrities" should be "Min depicted celebrities"

I think this info is still current actually. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I get your point, but it is under the US weekly header which is otherwise in the past which is why it sticks out. The other one is "too friendly to the celebrities it covers" - shouldn't 'covers' be 'covered'? This one's just a typo: "as oppose to" should be "as opposed to". SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Personally I prefer current/ongoing tense; presumably the magazine still covers at least some of the same celebrities, etc., but I went ahead and changed it. Grammar debates being not really worthwhile for anyone David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Any reason to remove content from the 'personal life' section?

Personally, I thought it was a little silly to mention who her neighbor is and thought it was trivia. For her husband, she said her husband was involved in a lot of other stuff now, but because he is not a notable public figure, we wouldn't find any updated sources with his current occupation. My advice was that her personal life is of so little interest to an encyclopedia that the best thing to do would be to trim it. As before, some of these are judgment calls where editors could reasonably degree and I trust your call. Another alternative would be to add an "as of" to it. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. After looking at the current sources I realise they are pretty gossipy. I was surprised there's no source for when they got married though.

• I'll need to read a few of the sources to be able to get an idea of how representative the draft is overall. Ping me if I don't get back to you. SmartSE (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Smartse:! I have responded inset above. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I'll respond properly in the next few days. Meanwhile do @Safehaven86: or @Guat6: have any comments? SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the draft is looking pretty good. I don't have any specific feedback at this time, other than where it says "Min had negotiated a contract where her compensation was partially tied to the number of papers sold," I think it should say "magazines" rather than "papers." Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Updated "papers" to "magazines" as suggested. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've read a few of the sources and haven't unearthed any scandals so we're pretty NPOV. Just the few minor points above to deal with and changing <i> </i> to '' '' and we'll be good to go. SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Smartse: I usually let the bots take care of translating my HTML to Wiki-code, but I went ahead and fixed it, in addition to the other notes above. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent - I'll merge the histories but note that you're not editing the article directly. SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll wait a bit to make sure it's stable before taking it the usual GA round. I'll also be doing The Hollywood Reporter eventually, which has a lot of overlap with this page, if you're interested in taking a look later on. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)