Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
expand
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)
172,064 edits
m clarify
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 96: Line 96:


*'''Images''' of the 3, there's only one non-free, and that is the cover that is documented to have launched her career. While we generally frown on NFC on living persons, exceptions are made if such images are extensive subjects of discussion, which is the case here, so that non-free should be fine -- though I have added an "upright" to the portrait-oriented image per MOS:IMAGES as well as the fact that that image was the largest on the page, which (inadvertently) draws the eye to the tasteful nude rather than her main "real life" image. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Images''' of the 3, there's only one non-free, and that is the cover that is documented to have launched her career. While we generally frown on NFC on living persons, exceptions are made if such images are extensive subjects of discussion, which is the case here, so that non-free should be fine -- though I have added an "upright" to the portrait-oriented image per MOS:IMAGES as well as the fact that that image was the largest on the page, which (inadvertently) draws the eye to the tasteful nude rather than her main "real life" image. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

;Comments from SlimVirgin
*I'm sorry, but I have to '''oppose''', for several reasons, mainly [[WP:FACR]] 1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and 4 (unnecessary detail).

:*Writing and citation style: The article needs a copy edit, but it's harder than usual to read in edit mode because there are so many references within sentences. This is sometimes unavoidable when handling sensitive or contentious material, but in this article I can't see a need for it.

:*Quality of sources: Low-quality sources should be removed, including the ''Daily Mail''. See [[WP:BLPSOURCES]]: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." And FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."

:*Unnecessary detail: It seems to include everything that is known about her. Do we need to know how old her parents were when she was born and that they were not married? Same in the infobox: there's no point in adding that she has brown eyes and hair when we can see that from the photograph.

:*Neutrality: She made her name from the Blurred Lines video, but no mention is made of how controversial that was. It's also very contentious to say in WP's voice that she's a feminist. Feminism is a broad church but not this broad; the Blurred Lines video could not be further removed from feminism. If she has said she regards herself as a feminist, we can consider quoting her, but with caution: it almost takes us into [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] territory, in the sense that we'd have trouble finding an opposing view simply because it's unlikely that anyone would have responded.

:*General content and tone: The article pours over every detail of this very young woman's life and body, including her early sexualization (which made me very sad to read in the sources), with no awareness of the broader issues. Wanting to feature it on her birthday seems inappropriate for the same reason. In addition to that, we talk a lot about fixing the way women are represented on Wikipedia, but featuring this article would be a sprint in the wrong direction.

:[[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:41, 23 March 2016

Emily Ratajkowski

Emily Ratajkowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about model, actress and activist Emily Ratajkowski. I would like to take one last shot at getting the article promoted to FA in time to be a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday (on June 7), which is less than 3 months away. I have requested that the current PR be closed. I feel that I have attempted to resolve all issues that were raised in the prior FAC.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
    • Lead: bounces around a bit. In the first para, it starts with born and raised, then goes to reason for notability (2013), then further career post 2013 - fine. But then the second para goes back to 2012 - why? Then the third para doesn't mention any dates, making it unclear when is meant, though it seems like it might go back even further than 2012 ... I recommend going chronological, but you can pick a different order, as long as there is any obvious order, as is it's confusing.
      • The LEAD does not attempt to be chronological. There is an overview. Then there is a modelling paragraph, an acting paragraph and an other personal stuff paragraph. I welcome commentary on working with this structure or clarification on why this structure is no good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • GRuban, I would appreciate feedback on the newly organized and expanded LEAD as well as the status of all other issues. I hope to be too busy to respond until Monday or Tuesday after tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks better now, the organization by subject is more clear. --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She has now been in two Swimsuit Issues." should explain that this means Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues, as is not obvious, lots of mags have such.
    • We Are Your Friends with Zac Efron (her first leading role) - haven't seen the movie, but from the text below, "leading role" is overstatement. It's her first non-bit-part, but from your own statements below ("Although not a cameo, ... a role not requiring significant acting.... not part of the central relationship of the movie") it seems to be a minor role. If you insist on it, I recommend a citation of a critic calling it such.
      • She had lots and lots of lines and was in many scenes. Her onscreen role was not minor in this sense. She was clearly the female lead. In terms of contributing to the theme of the movie, her role was that of a muse for the male characters. I'll look for a critic citing it as a leading role.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the current citation that I just added adequate?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exposure to the nude female figure in photography and art during her formative years prepared Ratajkowski for her eventual nude and semi-nude appearances before the camera.[16] ... Her father's work as a visual artist exposed her to nudity in art.[17] - Repetitive, combine these two.
    • As a young teen, she experienced pressure from friends, family and society due to her physical maturity and developing sexuality.[18][19] - what kind of pressure? pressure to model? pressure to have sex? surely not from her family?
      • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still not enough. "she experienced pressure regarding expressing her sexuality" means what? She was pressured to express it, or to hide it, or to express it in certain ways, or not to express it in other ways, or some of each from different people? If we're writing something, that implies it's somehow different from what 90% of adolescents experience. What, exactly? --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have tried to clarify further. The sources are right there. If this current phrasing is insufficient, please consider making a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good now; you finally explained how she was pressured. --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • After two nondescript movie roles, Ratajkowski appeared as Gibby's girlfriend Tasha in two third-season episodes of Nickelodeon's iCarly. Despite her previous minor film roles, she described her iCarly role as "my first and only acting job".[2] - when was this? when were the minor roles? I realize they're there in the tables, but to me, at least, it's obviously missing from the text as well
    • Her manager discouraged her from pursuing many acting engagements until she was in a position to be more selective.[8][22] - she had a manager after two minor roles and two cable appearances? Really? Or was this her modeling manager?
    • She had become a disillusioned student after her brief experience in the School of the Arts and Architecture at UCLA. - in what way disillusioned?
      • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • "both disappointed in the academic and social environment" Sorry, still not enough. Disappointed how? Were the academics not rigorous? Too strict? Was there too little socializing? Too much? Did she not have friends? Not have classes she liked? What? Also "was both disappointed" is clumsy phrasing. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am going to look at this again, but keep in mind we are presenting what she has put on the public record as her reason. Also these were her stated reasons while she was an aspiring actress in Hollywood. I will look at this again though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is hard for me to say more about the academic issue. She said "I went in for the art department, which was really small, and I thought it'd be a school within a big school. But I didn't really find that. I also find fine art education really arbitrary. Some of the conceptual stuff they were pushing I didn't really agree with." Not a school within a big school is ambiguous and could mean she thought it would operate independently as its own school within a big school or operate as a school more in synch with the big school. Furthermore, saying she found the things arbitrary and in conflict with her artistic concepts is also somewhat ambiguous. In terms of the social issue, she said "When people are like – 'College! Oh my God! Ultimate freedom!' -- I didn't feel that way. My roommates were loving hitting the town, but I wasn't as psyched about going to the frats." I could say she did not feel college was the Ultimate freedom that it was cracked up to be and that she did not like the frat party as a social option. What do you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • "She found the UCLA fine art education arbitrary and in conflict with her artistic concepts, and didn't enjoy socializing with fellow students." --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models", Ratajkowski considers herself to have the potential to break barriers for models -1: need an inline ref directly after the quote; 2: explain the difference (presumably that runway models are traditionally taller and flat or angular?)
    • On May 4, 2015, she attended the Met Gala, and made news by wearing a dress from Topshop - strike this whole sentence, we are not a gossip mag, and don't note that she sometimes goes to see a show and wears clothes when she does so. This much can be assumed.
    • Her sex appeal remained high, as evidenced by - Yeek. Arguably the whole article is evidence of her sex appeal, not a specific item. Remove these words.
    • On July 31, 2014, Ratajkowski announced that she had been cast in her first leading role - why does it matter when she announced it, now that it's happened already? Remove.
    • Similarly "In March 2015, Ratajkowski was announced as part of the cast for The Spoils Before Dying." and " (September 3 release announced on September 1)".
    • While you're here, move these two paras down to the rest of the section about the film; one film shouldn't be split among two sections
    • her hometown movie critic Anders Wright of The San Diego Union-Tribune remained silent on her role. - again, strike. Someone not writing about her is not news.
      • It may not be news, but it is critical commentary. Saying that a person has a significant role that was not worth critiquing is actually a critique on the role.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • GRuban, I need a direct response to this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And note I am a huge fan of this actress, and am just attempting to summarize the secondary sources that people might rely on to enterpret her performance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, sorry, I disagree. Someone not mentioning her is not critical commentary about her. As I write below, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and the Pope also did not mention her role. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obama, Putin, and the Pope are not relevant here. I have listed only film critics notable enough to have articles on WP. From that subset of critics, I have listed only those who wrote critical commentary included at either Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes that attempts to describe the notable elements of the films in which she had a significant role. You are talking about people (Obama, Putin, and the Pope) who have no professional expertise in film criticism, and who have not written about the films in which she had a critical role. Of course people who write nothing about film and did not attempt to dissect films in which she had a significant role would not write about her. What is notable is that she is described as being the lead in the film and people who are expert in film criticism and who critically reviewed the film in which she had a significant role made no comment on her performance. Please get on point and explain why when an expert in your field who is evaluating the performances in a work you played a major role in says nothing about you what that means to the reader. The article as it stands summarizes what every critic who has an article on WP (plus her hometown critic), is included in Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes and reviewed the film said or didn't say about her performance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those comments are for her We Are Your Friends role. For less prominent roles, I expanded the list of critics to those without WP articles to round out the article as necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, sorry, I'm going to hold the line here. If a critic did not mention her, it does not help our article to write "critic did not mention her". Feel free to get a WP:3O or open a WP:RFC or whatever, but I am quite sure about this. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K., I have trimmed the WAYF paragraph from 2303 to 1485 characters, which is over 35% trim. An WP:RFC is a 30 day process, so I will get an opinion at WP:BLPN, which can be resolved much more quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your opinion was supported at BLPN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Is the offending paragraph short enough now? I don't want to be arbitrary in shortening the list of reviewers. Right now we have all Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes critics who had WP bios last summer who commented on Ratajkowski in WAYF. I could shorten the list to those with WP bios whose reviews were published in media outlets that had WP articles. That would cut down a couple of critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • GRuban I have attempted to address all of your concerns. Aside from this query, I believe we have satisfied your expectations. Can you clarify your perception of the progress? Do you have remaining concerns?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We Are Your Friends performance garnered her mixed reviews - this whole paragraph is at least twice (probably four times) as long and detailed as it should be. As clearly stated, this is a minor role, so presumably will not be the high point of her career. Pick a few representative/influential reviews, summarize the rest.
      • I think I kind of punted and summarized each notable author who was at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Some of the above debate may sort itself out as I look at trimming this down. Let me see. I am not sure I can cut it by more than a third, but I'll have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably the worst offender from that paragraph is this sentence: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Brian Viner of Daily Mail and both Peter Bradshaw and Mark Kermode of The Guardian were also silent on Ratajkowski's performance.[124][135][136][137] We might as well write that Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and the Pope also didn't mention it.

--GRuban (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • GRuban, can I request your feedback on other potential images from this 2015 video using the following points of the video that have potential images 1:02-1:03; 1:34-1:36; and 2:02-2:04? P.S. I am on my backup computer right now and am not able to do high quality screen caps until my primary comes back. If you find any of those points worth capturing you could add them to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, that video isn't Creative Commons licensed. YouTube hides the license under the SHOW MORE link in the middle of the page. That video is under "Standard YouTube License", which means we can't reuse it. The two that I found that are under "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dBRIBCBI40 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1B4pFMnLZY. (There are a few other YouTube videos of her marked Creative Commons Attribution, for example the Hollywood Daily ones, but I frankly doubt their ownership of the images they display. The LOVE magazine ones do seem actually owned by the magazine.) Strangely enough, it's not the easiest thing to find freely licensed pictures of someone who normally receives lots of money for having pictures taken of them. --GRuban (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these are good now, with a few minor exceptions I trust we'll work out.

I can support. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The last paragraph of lede sect is good, but looks a bit short, perhaps it could be expanded a tad bit more with additional content of the same topic. Also in the lede intro sect in that same paragraph, terms could be wikilinked: women's health, feminist, and women's rights. Unfortunately, Checklinks tool shows many problem links -- this can easily be solved by adding parameters "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" to citation fields using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive -- but keeping the original links in there for posterity. Problem link defined as any link with anything other than blank in results field -- eg 200, 301, 404 (dead link), etc. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images of the 3, there's only one non-free, and that is the cover that is documented to have launched her career. While we generally frown on NFC on living persons, exceptions are made if such images are extensive subjects of discussion, which is the case here, so that non-free should be fine -- though I have added an "upright" to the portrait-oriented image per MOS:IMAGES as well as the fact that that image was the largest on the page, which (inadvertently) draws the eye to the tasteful nude rather than her main "real life" image. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SlimVirgin
  • I'm sorry, but I have to oppose, for several reasons, mainly WP:FACR 1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and 4 (unnecessary detail).
  • Writing and citation style: The article needs a copy edit, but it's harder than usual to read in edit mode because there are so many references within sentences. This is sometimes unavoidable when handling sensitive or contentious material, but in this article I can't see a need for it.
  • Quality of sources: Low-quality sources should be removed, including the Daily Mail. See WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." And FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."
  • Unnecessary detail: It seems to include everything that is known about her. Do we need to know how old her parents were when she was born and that they were not married? Same in the infobox: there's no point in adding that she has brown eyes and hair when we can see that from the photograph.
  • Neutrality: She made her name from the Blurred Lines video, but no mention is made of how controversial that was. It's also very contentious to say in WP's voice that she's a feminist. Feminism is a broad church but not this broad; the Blurred Lines video could not be further removed from feminism. If she has said she regards herself as a feminist, we can consider quoting her, but with caution: it almost takes us into fringe territory, in the sense that we'd have trouble finding an opposing view simply because it's unlikely that anyone would have responded.
  • General content and tone: The article pours over every detail of this very young woman's life and body, including her early sexualization (which made me very sad to read in the sources), with no awareness of the broader issues. Wanting to feature it on her birthday seems inappropriate for the same reason. In addition to that, we talk a lot about fixing the way women are represented on Wikipedia, but featuring this article would be a sprint in the wrong direction.
SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive3&oldid=711479981"