Talk:Ainsley Hayes

Ainsley Hayes has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 25, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Television: The West Wing Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the West Wing task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women in Red

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

A fact from Ainsley Hayes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 March 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The West Wing faced criticism for a scene in which Ainsley Hayes defends a sexist and objectifying remark made at her?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ainsley Hayes.

Wikipedia

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 Rlink2 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that The West Wing faced criticism for a scene in which Ainsley Hayes defends a sexist and objectifying remark made at her? Source: Heisler 2010i, Webster 2020 (p. 160)
- ALT1: ... that the voracious appetite of West Wing character Ainsley Hayes was characterized by one fan as a "Quasi-Manic Pixie Dream Girl Quirk Trait™"? source
- ALT2: ... that The West Wing's Ainsley Hayes shares her voracious appetite with her portrayer, Emily Procter?
- Reviewed: Greg Dulcich
- Comment: I'm a little torn. On the one hand, there's the serious, down-to-earth main hook, which if it's ran, I'd like to be during Women's History Month. On the other hand, I really love goofy hooks, and I did get a reasonably good goofy with ALT1. So... I'll come back to this one. In the mean time, finally back here!

Converted from a redirect by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 08:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Pretty interesting! Nice to see a character article that isn't an extended plot summary. I think it's almost good to go, but I see some refs are linked to "Paxton 2003", which seems to be a mistake as I see no such work in the bibliography, so please fix that. I would also recommend fleshing out the lead a bit more. Maybe link Manic Pixie Dream Girl in ALT1? Overall, great work! MSG17 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MSG17: Ah, that should be Paxton 2005! I'll flesh out the lead over the next couple of days, since I'm taking this one to GAN. In the meantime, I also linked MPDG in ALT1. Cheers, and thanks for the review! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Theleekycauldron: Great! I think it's ready for DYK. Thanks for writing this article, and good luck at GAN! MSG17 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P6

image

Why this article doesnt have infobox image. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it—the problem is that a fair use rationale for this kind of thing is tricky, given Wikipedia's strict copyright policies. George Ho, any thoughts on the fair use of the image in the west wing fandom wiki for this article? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears in Getty Images. Better not use it especially per WP:NFC#UUI's #7 rule about photos appearing in photo agencies. No opinion on a screenshot but only as long as it's given sufficient context to understanding of the character. Well... I used a screenshot of Coach Ernie Pantusso doing a coconut cocktail... badly. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I meant this one, it provides pretty good context for the day-to-day costume of the character. All the wacky images of Ainsley are low-quality, so I'll leave that notion alone for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and a reping to George Ho. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is her in the role wearing brown clothes. But if that's what you want, you may wanna make sure no photo agency uses it. The photo is credited to either NBC or Warner Bros. AFAIK. I also searched for the image in Getty Images, Rex Features, and Alamy without avail. --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: found it here on Alamy. does that really mean that this fails off the bat? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Man, did I miss that. Well, best to avoid that photo as well then. --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, fiddlesticks. Thanks for your help :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. BTW, you may wanna read c:Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images; interesting read. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gold sequin dress shown in the Creation and Development section has a bizarre caption forcing the image to match Procter's reference to wearing purple pants to the audition. Gold isn't purple. A dress isn't a pair of pants. Change the caption! Martindo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will open up with comments shortly.

Comments here (I find that this way is easier than trying to "tq" everything I want to edit or add - my browser crashes alot and its harder for me to edit wikitext). Bolded and strikethough text is my opinion. Sometimes its a suggestion to replace something, other times its an invintation to write more or rephrase. You can reply to any of those concerns here.

Some off hand comments:

Regarding "mixed to positive" doesn't mixed imply positive and negative, so whats the need to write "positive"? COrrect me if I'm wrong.

I have to say, the referencing style is intersting. Can't say I've seen it before. But it works.

Overall, good work. Rlink2 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Rlink2! Your prose review style is interesting, I may copy it for future runs. (By the way, there might be a way for you to just copy the page to the new site, make the edits you want, and show the changes as a Special:Diff link). I implemented most of the changes, except a couple:

"mixed to positive": some of the coverage was mixed (good+bad), others positive. I changed it to "ranges from" mixed to positive, I'll change it in the lead too.
"Ainsley's": Procter's, not Ainsley's.

Other than that, all good! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron

Your prose review style is interesting, I may copy it for future runs. Feel free to do so. One time i had a very detailed and lengthy response to something on wiki typed up, I hit submit, and lost it all due to my not so good internet connection. I ought to switch browsers, but Firefox and Pale moon have their own problems. At least with the VE, if you hit submit and the connection fails, you don't lose your work. Off topic banter aside ....

make the edits you want, and show the changes as a Special:Diff link Yeah i was going to do that, but I forgot.

Anyways, looks good, will pass Rlink2 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: thanks so much! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]