Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3: Difference between revisions
TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs) →Comments from Masem: clarify only images |
|||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
***'''Update:''' I've had another look. That quote box is WAY too big and too large of an excerpted quote. Strongly recommend either remove it or significantly trim it to about one sentence. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
***'''Update:''' I've had another look. That quote box is WAY too big and too large of an excerpted quote. Strongly recommend either remove it or significantly trim it to about one sentence. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
==== |
====Image review by Masem==== |
||
*'''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) |
||
Revision as of 20:16, 24 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)
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)
- According to Category:FA-Class fashion articles, no models are at WP:FA status. Please help me raise the quality of this article by giving some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have contacted the following persons who have been involved in previous discussions:
- WP:GOCE reviewer User:Baffle gab1978
- Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/GA1 reviewer User:Cirt
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussants User:Cirt, User:SNUGGUMS, User:Kiyoweap, User:Sigeng
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussant User:Cirt, User:MaranoFan and User:Karanacs
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussant User:Bollyjeff, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Masem, User:Nikkimaria, and User:Elcobbola
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussants User:White Arabian Filly--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have also contacted many of the most active editors to the page: User:Tinton5, User:Baffle gab1978, User:General Ization, User:All Hallow's Wraith, User:Nightscream, User:Chaheel Riens, User:American In Brazil, User:Cliftonian, User:Thewildone85, User:SNUGGUMS, User:Guat6, User:N0n3up, and User:Mbinebri--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from GRuban
- Disclaimer - I uploaded the free images for the article, no other contributions that I can recall. But I am, of course, tempted to promote for the photos alone. :-). Otherwise:
Extended content
|
---|
--GRuban (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
|
I can support. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Cirt
- 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)
- Cirt, I have done some massaging of the WP:LEAD, but don't know how much details about specific issues should be included at this stage of her career. She is not at a stage where any issue is a life's work. I think the current brief advocacy and activist summary is a proper weight of these issues in the context of her entire biography. I have addressed all the reference issues. Any remaining checklink flags are false.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Lede intro sect looks a bit better. I took another look at the viability of the hyperlinks used in the article references. Unfortunately, Checklinks tool still 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. There are still lots of problem links -- including redirect links and even a red-highlighted dead-link in the hyperlinks. These need to be addressed. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cirt, I have just opened the Checklinks and the only color I see is green (26 links). In past reviews at FA and GA, it has been my experience that the two colors depicted at the top of the checklinks page as Broken are the only ones that I need to address. I do not see any red-highlighted links at the moment. I am on my backup computer, which is running Firefox 45.0.1 in Windows 7. this series of edits yesterday addressed all the broken links that I could. At the time it appeared that one or two remaining red-highlighted links were giving a false reading where the reference was good. However, I no longer see any red-highlighted links in the checklinks tool.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. what is a redirect link and what is the problem with it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please address the problem links at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Emily_Ratajkowski -- Problem link defined as any link with anything other than blank in results field -- eg 200, 301, 404 (dead link), etc. Please do your best to address all links, if possible. Please at the very least archive all those "green" links -- that means the reader has to be redirected to a 2nd hyperlink instead of the original one -- that is a very bad sign and an indicator the link may go dead in the future. Thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oddly, ref 11 from www.independent.ie has returned to a pink color. An attempt to add an archive URL from the Wayback Machine yields the following error: "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt." The ref remains active and accessible. I will get on to the 26 green ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Try http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php. --GRuban (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have archived most problem links We have gone from 26 green-highlighted links and 1 red-highlighted link to 5 green-highlighted links. I can't find any archives for the remaining 5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Above, GRuban gave a great recommendation to try http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php -- that could be used to archive the remaining links. — Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have archived most problem links We have gone from 26 green-highlighted links and 1 red-highlighted link to 5 green-highlighted links. I can't find any archives for the remaining 5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Try http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php. --GRuban (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oddly, ref 11 from www.independent.ie has returned to a pink color. An attempt to add an archive URL from the Wayback Machine yields the following error: "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt." The ref remains active and accessible. I will get on to the 26 green ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please address the problem links at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Emily_Ratajkowski -- Problem link defined as any link with anything other than blank in results field -- eg 200, 301, 404 (dead link), etc. Please do your best to address all links, if possible. Please at the very least archive all those "green" links -- that means the reader has to be redirected to a 2nd hyperlink instead of the original one -- that is a very bad sign and an indicator the link may go dead in the future. Thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overusage of quote boxes with large size quotations -- I note at the end of a peer review a couple reviews ago, the article was down to one quote box. I'm not sure how or when, but now the article has two pull quote boxes. Both of them have quotations that are way too large. Strongly recommend removing both of them, and going back through the entire article to paraphrase and/or trim down quotations wherever possible. Certainly those two quote boxes are way too large and unwieldy. — Cirt (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the recently added quotebox. Since the paragraph has numerous critical commentaries, I will leave it to the reader to find out what is so interesting by navigating to the source and its secondary summaries. I will stand behind the longstanding quotebox if it is not too objectionable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Image review by Masem
- 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)
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.
- Citation style? WP:IC is now the prevailing form of citation. Thus, I have placed citations as close to the fact presented as possible using the usual forms of adjacency that I have used in my dozens of WP:FAs and hundreds of WP:GAs. When a particular contentious fact is part of a sentence this requires a citation within a sentence. There is absolutely no stylistic guide that opposes such a citation style to my knowledge and I have never seen a preference for averting such citations in any of the
hundredsthousands of GA, PRs and FA reviews I have been involved in. It is generally considered a strength to have citations adjacent to facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC) - I am open to any copyeditting assistance that may be availed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Citation style? WP:IC is now the prevailing form of citation. Thus, I have placed citations as close to the fact presented as possible using the usual forms of adjacency that I have used in my dozens of WP:FAs and hundreds of WP:GAs. When a particular contentious fact is part of a sentence this requires a citation within a sentence. There is absolutely no stylistic guide that opposes such a citation style to my knowledge and I have never seen a preference for averting such citations in any of the
- 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.
- It is odd to discuss unnecessary detail as a complaint and then to point to standard inclusions in a biography. Note for a model, eye and hair color are important enough information for this persons occupation that that parameters exist for these items of data. For a model/actress, we can not go by the color in a picture because they often have to color their hair for roles and sometimes wear coloring contacts. For the average person, we may not care about their political affiliation, but we would not describe filling in that parameter as unusual for a politician. Similarly, for a model, physical attributes are common biographical summary elements. I don't know if this type of issue has led to Deepika Padukone being a FA without an infobox. If so, I am open to understanding this issue further. In terms of depicting what type of family one is born into, it is not remotely out of line to describe whether a person was an orphan, bastard, adopted, born to unknown parents or what have you. She is of unusual stock being from unmarried American parents living abroad. As a discussant, you are generally suppose to point out actionable issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, you have shown in this edit that you are aware of which parameters have been deprecated and which have not. Obviously, if the remaining parameters are not deprecated, they must serve the readers in a way that is desirable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- Please note I have added a quote in which she presents herself as a feminist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ratajkowski's brand of feminism involves promoting female sexual empowerment and sexuality. I.e., a woman should be free to share her body in art, social activity, publicity, or private activity as she desires without shame. She has experienced the extreme opposite type of bodyshaming that feminists usually fight. Usually, it is the woman who strays from conventional attractiveness (maybe by being fat—possibly due to pregnancy, or life stress) that endures pressure. She has, by virtue of being almost the symbol of conventional attractiveness, been subject to pressure not to excite or arouse. Freely sharing her body in a music video is part and parcel to her brand of feminism. I will attempt to find some quotations to make this brand of feminism more clear to the reader. Feminist seek equal treatment for women. If guys can rap about women trying to get on their magicsticks and talk about their conquests, why can't a woman even express enjoyment of sexual expression. She feels women should be able to talk about sexual activity as freely as men and express their sexuality with no more restriction than men. I would enjoy guidance in taking the article in the direction of clarifying this to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, also note that there is extensive discourse regarding the contorversy surrounding "Blurred Lines". Additionally, there are quite extensive responses to Ratajkowski's brand of feminism. I did not find opposing views even last month when she was prominently in the public view for her brand of feminism. Can you even explain what an opposing view would be. It seems to me that the opposing view is in support of misogeny. Given the widespread response to her expression of her views and my inability to find opposing views, I feel like I am aware I may be missing something. Please help me to balance the article with opponents to her recent feminist manifesto.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- General content and tone: The article pores 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.
- Are you saying that the article is deficient in contextualizing this biography amid broader issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from General Ization
- While I appreciate the efforts of TonyTheTiger in developing this article and presenting it for FA consideration, I too must oppose. Without repeating all of the criticisms above (with which I agree), the article as currently written is in serious need of trimming, in several sections is overtly promotional in tone, and is excessively linked to the point of creating a sea of blue. The article clearly reflects a great deal of love on the part of its major contributors (my contributions being mostly reverting vandalism) for their subject – perhaps a little too much love for an encyclopaedic article. General Ization Talk 03:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- General Ization, Feel free to present examples of extensive promotion. I can not improve the article without feedback. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from White Arabian Filly
- This is my first time having anything to do with FAC. I see two minor issues in the article, both in "Activism and advocacy". "Planned Parenthood" is written in the article as "Planned parenthood"--it's an official name, so needs to be capitalized. Also, a sentence lower down says "response to her involvement included comments on her bravery". That just doesn't make sense as a complete sentence to me. I think it's missing a "that" somewhere. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have converted Planned Parenthood to titlecase in the one instance in which it was not previously presented thusly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have corrected the typo in the phrase that you pointed out above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then support the FAC. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Nightscream
Comment Thanks for contacting me, but I don't really know what the criteria are for FA. I do copyedit lots of articles, and did a few edits yesterday to the article, but don't have time for anything else right now. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nightscream, the FA criteria are presented at WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- And what's the difference between those criteria and those for Good articles (of which I've written a few)? They read as mostly the same. In any event, I don't have time or interest to comprehensively read the article right now. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- If a good article is "good", then a featured article is "really, really good". :-) More seriously, one of the key differences is that you need one reviewer to mark something as a good article, and you need many reviewers to mark something as a featured article. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Figureskatingfan
Support. This article fits the criteria for FAs. Yes, it has a lot of detail, but I think it should, given the subject. Models are subject to this kind of detail, and much of what's included is connected to her profession and career. The sources aren't the most reliable, but again, these are the kinds of publications that write about models like Ratajkowski, so I think it's appropriate to include them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Usually, you put me through a lot of editorial hoops before supporting an FA and I know it is encouraged for reviewers to make suggested improvements before supporting. Feel free to make suggestions later. I hope a support without editorial guidance carries weight because I was under the impression that such reviews may be discounted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)