Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was withdrawn.

Shine (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani and featuring vocals by Pharrell Williams for the 2014 film Paddington. It has recently gone through the GA review and passed and I believe it has all the qualities for a FA. Thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is Pharrell Williams? - provide context to the uninformed reader.

Done

  • Too many instances with the word "song" in the lead and the article body.

Done Replaced a few instances; let me know if more needs to replaced.

  • "Stefani later praised the song's lyrics" - how so? what changed her mind, just the viewing of the film? If so, which particular scene?
  • According to the sources, she changed her mind just by the viewing of the film with her children. She did not pick out a particular scene when talking about it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did she like the lyrics or just the song in general? According to the article body, she liked the song after viewing the film, whereas the lead says she changed her minds on the lyrics. – jona ✉ 23:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • She said her opinion about the lyrics changed after watching the film. I made the correction in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was "Happy" and "Spark the Fire" released?

Done I originally had the dates next to all the songs, but I was advised to removed them during the GAN as the reviewer called them "filler".

  • Since we don't have an article on Herbert Chappell, can you explain who he is/was?

Done

  • Who are The Cranberries?

Done

  • There is a difference between reggae and reggae pop.

Done Thank you for this catch! I can't believe I overlooked something as obvious as this ><

– jona ✉ 00:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be improved. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says reggae pop but the lead says reggae.

Done

  • Herbert is a composer, got it but what's his nationality? Which era of music was he in?

Done Let me know if this part needs to be clarified more. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still too many instances with the word "song" in the article body (try track, it, recording, etc).

Done Thank you for the suggestion; I couldn't think of alternatives for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A source is needed for Herbert's claim. – jona ✉ 02:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a source clarifying that Herbert created a theme for Paddington Bear. The Boston Herald source has the citation for the information on the Cambridge Symphony Orcestra Family Concerts. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– jona ✉ 23:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your help. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be improved. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now support this article after the comments I made were addressed. Best, – jona ✉ 14:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The prose is not of FA standard and the article needs copyediting throughout. I am not going to list all the problems, because this is FAC and not peer review, except for one: "but some criticized the it for being weaker". Graham Beards (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Graham Beards: Thank you for your comment. I have revised the part you have pointed out, but I honestly can't see any other errors in the prose. Just for your knowledge was c/e by the GOCE, but I will submit it for peer review if this fails. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination. I have put this article up for peer review to improve it to the FA standard if possible. I would like to thank both of the people who commented. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2016 [1].

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying

This article is about American model and actress Emily Ratajkowski. I hope to get this promoted in time for consideration at WP:TFA on her 25th birthday (June 7). This article has had a recent WP:GOCE, which may address some of the issue related to tone, promotional issues, and neutrality. The article is greatly changed since the last FAC closed last week.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt[edit]


Comments from TrueHeartSusie3[edit]

  • While I appreciate all of the hard work you have done for the article, I will have to oppose, for the following reasons:
Length and excessive detail — Ratajkowski has been notable for less than four years, yet the article is longer than the articles on Philip Seymour Hoffman (whose career spanned over two decades) and Emma Thompson (who has had an even longer career), just to give two examples. When reading the article, it often seems like what's being said could've been expressed in a lot fewer words, and that the editors have been somewhat wary of synthesizing. For example, you don't need to quote 11 different critics when writing about the reception of her performance in We Are Your Friends; or to have three sentences about her heritage; or to have an entire sub-section of seven paragraphs on a music video. A lot of the details in the article don't seem very noteworthy, e.g. in which cities she promoted We Are Your Friends, or all the magazines she was featured in during that time, or that she's hosted a VIP party.
TrueHeartSusie3, I forgot to ask you what you think of this. The 11 critics are the complete set of critics that reviewed WAYF at either Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes who have WP biographies. I chose to use all 11 rather than cherry pick. Is that O.K.?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I could do is reduce the number of critics by only including those who have WP biographies and whose reviews were in works that have WP pages. By my count this would reduce the number of critics from 13 to 8. I don't know where 11 came from. I think I will do this just to shorten that paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. My counts are off. In the text, I did not note that Nell Minow was on Beliefnet, Christopher Gray was on Slant Magazine, Glenn Kenny was on redirect RogerEbert.com. Thus, only James Berardinelli who was in Reelviews.net, Christy Lemire was on her own blog, would be removed. We would end up with 10 or 11 reviewers and we would lose the Lemire article which is one of the few that was actually inciteful about her role. Do you think I should cut out Lemire, Berardinelli and possibly Kenny?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually added the media outlet for Minow and Gray. Kenny too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis — that's the answer. Take a look at other actor FAs for examples. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Are you aware that Emma Thompson is 34770 characters (5729 words) "readable prose" and Philip Seymour Hoffman is 37754 characters (6210 words), while this article is 24671 characters (3939 words). Thompson is 41% longer in terms of characters and Hoffman is 53% longer. Good and featured articles about Academy Award winning actors and actresses will have different content than those of less accomplished actors who get press for other reasons. Keep in mind that part of the length is due to the fact that we are accounting for two careers for Ratajkowski who is both an actress and a model. This article has had a recent copyedit by WP:GOCE-member Twofingered Typist. I may have hampered him when he started making edits eliminating supporting WP:ICs and questioning whether he should be removing content in that way. Note I was alarmed when I realized that his edits would require these edits to restore WP:ICs. I am not sure if more content would have been removed if I had not voiced my concerns over the early content removal. Twofingered Typist can tell you if he would have preferred to remove more content. I am not averse to content being removed if it remains an article with WP:V. If he feels he was hampered, I would welcome a further copyedit in which content remains WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twofingered Typist, could you please comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remain convinced that there is excessive detail around the topic of the video but I am unable to attempt another edit at this time. Yes, her video appearance is probably 90% of the reason behind her notoriety, but the article is about her NOT the video.I suggested that the table of magazine covers be removed - I checked several more famous models' pages and they do not contain such a table. A mention of two or three of the most important mags would suffice. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that no models have a magazine cover listing, but there are also no articles regarding women who are primarily notable for being models at WP:FA. The closest we have to women notable for being models are Marilyn Monroe and Deepika Padukone. It is hard to say what type of detail would bring a woman notable for modeling to WP:FA level recognition. I am more of a content gatherer than a copyeditor. So I will leave it to others to say what a good copy edit would entail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I was wrong about the prose word count, it's still far too long for someone with as short a career. I'm very confused about your concern on reducing inline citations — verifiability is extremely important for a WP article, I'm definitely not suggesting you should cut on those. What I mean is that in order to improve the article, you need to cut unnecessary details and synthesize. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I did not mean to confuse you. If you look at the April 15 portion of the GOCE copyedit, you will see the edits that chopped content in a way that made certain facts no longer WP:V. You can see my outrage over this on my talk page. Then in the April 17 portion of the GOCE copyedit very little content was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, but that's not what I mean at all. I mean that you should probably cut at least one third, perhaps even half of the prose. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I have posted this at WP:GOCE for another copyedit. I also hope that Chaheel Riens will continue to copyedit this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll keep chipping away - something came up in "real life" recently and took me away from wiki, so I was absent for a couple of weeks, but I be back now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bias, undue weight — The article reads more like a fansite or a magazine article than an encyclopedia article, partly due to excessive detail, but also due to the way in which Ratajkowski is portrayed. Far too much attention is placed on her ideas on feminism – while they certainly need to be mentioned, the article doesn't need to catalogue every single time she's stated something on this topic. Undue weight is being placed on this topic — Ratajkowski is primarily notable for being a model and an actor, not for her social activism/political views.
If you read the press that goes beyond whether she i showing us her body again, you will note that she is mostly being discussed as it relates to this issue. Keep in mind that FAC3 demanded that I add more details on a host of issues, including the Blurred Lines controvesies and her activism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not saying that you should delete the discussion on her feminism. However, the majority of the discussion should be contained within the "Advocacy" section, and be synthesized. Currently, you simply quote her a lot, even though it seems that she has mainly spoken about how women should be able to express their sexuality (or to do what they want in general) without shame. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
When you discuss the "Blurred Lines" controversy, only euphemisms ("a man's freedom to force himself on women"; "degradation of women") are used to describe the criticism towards it, namely that the video and the lyrics of the song promote rape/rape culture. These two mentions are followed by three paragraphs (!) of quotes from the video's director and Ratajkowski, essentially disagreeing with the criticism over and over again. So not only is there way too much detail about the video and the controversy, but it also seems like the controversy is presented in a way that is heavily biased towards Ratajkowski's opinion.
The reduction to mostly Ratajkowski's opinions came during the recent copyedit. Other opinions were in the article a week ago, but apparently, a full discourse on the controversies is not considered standard fare in this BLP. Obviously, you are someone who believes the song promotes rape. I am sure you would be happy if only that side of the controversies was presented in the article. Currently, the article gives equal time to both sides in terms of identifying the controversies and then states Ratajkowski's opinions on the controversies. Do you think this is wrong in her BLP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've not even seen the video so I cannot comment on whether the song promotes rape; however, this is what the controversy was about, the critics said that it does. Again, you should not be adding more detail, but you need to remove the euphemisms, and synthesize Ratajkowski's statements. E.g. "Critics have alleged that the song and its video promote rape and rape culture because XYZ. Both Ratajkowski and Martel disagree, stating that the video..." + max. 1-2 quotes. Sorry, but the article doesn't currently give equal time to both sides of the controversy.
Yes many outspoken critics say that it does. As the article says, others disagree.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to write about the controversy, you need to represent the views of both sides. I'm sorry, but your comments are giving further reason to believe that the article is not as unbiased as it should be. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
In FAC3, I had difficulty getting one discussant to even acknowledge that some critics disagree with the claim that the song is a Rapist Anthem. TrueHeartSusie3, do you acknowledge that some critics disagree with this claim? As I said, the article presents both sides with equal time and then presents Ratajkowski's opinions (because this is her bio).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, this is intended to be constructive criticism, but you're taking it way too personally. It is probably the reason why you've gone through 3 FAC nominations and 2 GOCEs already. I have nowhere implied that you should remove the comments which disagree that it promotes rape, simply that you should remove the euphemisms (i.e. state that some people allege it promotes rape in the first place) and that 3 paragraphs of Ratajkowski saying she disagrees is excessive. You yourself admit that your strengths don't lie in copyediting, so then you should probably take heed of others' suggestions. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
O.K. it appears that you do not acknowledge that some critics disagree. I understand detail needs to be removed. I am not really the person to do it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where do I say that I don't acknowledge that some critics disagree? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Every post dances around this. You keep saying critics cry Rape and Ratajkowski disagrees. It is not just that Ratajkowski disagrees. Some critics disagree. This is an article about Ratajkowski. We present both sides and then present Ratajkowski's view. Whichever side her view is will be overweighted in her own article for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. What I said (once again), is that you should a.) acknowledge what the critics said (i.e. replace the weird euphemisms), so that we know what this whole controversy is about in the first place; b.) then represent disagreeing views, the majority of which in this article are Ratajkowski's; c.) however, you should synthesize these, since three paras is just too long in a bio article. Nowhere in this did I say that you shouldn't discuss both sides — on the contrary, what I'm saying is that you need to be less biased. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Further examples:
  • "As of March 30, 2016, two videos in which Ratajkowski appeared for the company—a featured Holiday 2012 video and a local Valentine's 2011 video—are among the five most popular videos on the company's YouTube channel." — The videos being popular doesn't necessarily mean that they're popular due to Ratajkowski's appearance; using the Fredericks of Hollywood account as your source for this seems like OR.
Primary sources are considered WP:RS for numbers like followers, pageviews, likes, friends and such, if no better sources exist. It can not be the case that this content is both be from a RS and is WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you're implying that the videos are the most popular because of Ratajkowski, and you can't use YT as a source for that. As such, it's OR and unnecessary.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
There is not much in the press about Ratajkowski's Fredericks of Hollywood career because it predates her notability. Basically, all we can say is that she was in some videos and the they were popular in comparison to other FoH videos. I am just reporting what little there is to say. The reader can draw their own conclusions as to whether Ratajkowski made the videos popular. Pageviews are what they are.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to the popularity of the videos actually helps the reader find them on the FoH channel. Obviously, the reader who wants to research the popular videos will go to the FoH YT channel and look for the popular videos. If we just say she was in some FoH videos, the reader may not even be able to figure out which ones they were. We almost have to say, go look for the really popular ones if you want to see them for yourself just to help the reader find them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be completely fine to just list the companies she did ads for early in her career. Remember, WP articles shouldn't be collections of all possible information available on a bio subject, but to present an overview with the essential facts. You have to be very selective with the content. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "but some note that her small role as a "duplicitous and manipulative former student" is critical to the film" — Grantland is not a very notable film review website; the Salon review does not seem to state this. In general, it seems like reviews from minor publications were cherrypicked to make Ratajkowski's minor supporting role in the film appear more notable.
Her role in the film was not major. Thus, there are not many sources that have substantial commentary on it. There was no cherrypicking. Her role in Gone Girl was not critically reviewed almost anywhere other than the sources cited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly — then there's no point in stating that a minor reviewer thinks the character is important, and the Salon review is still falsely cited as further evidence of this. You can simply state that she had a minor role in a major film, but wasn't mentioned in most reviews.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
In prior versions, I had statements about how major reviewers were silent on Ratajkowski and this was met with great opposition. You are asking me revert to a format that has already been disapproved of.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem like she co-starred in Entourage, but rather appeared in a cameo role. The reviews are again interpreted as praise, even when they aren't, e.g. "uncanny realism" in the Philly review —the writers of the review don't mean this seriously, the line is "Vince can't decide whether he's going to date actress Emily Ratajkowski (played with uncanny realism by actress Emily Ratajkowski)", i.e. of course it's realistic since she's playing herself—; the Slant review doesn't describe Ratajkowski as a muse, but rather states that her character is intended to be the leading man's muse ("He finds a muse in the form of Stanford dropout Sophie").
The role was very extensive and much more than a cameo. You may have a case regarding uncanny, but I am not sure I understand your point regarding "muse".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that just your opinion though? The principal cast of the show seem to have the starring roles, and you've written that she doesn't actually have a lot of screen time. It seems to me like her cameo is notable, but she is definitely not a co-star. As for the muse bit, you seem to be saying that Ratajkowski as an actor is a 'muse', when that's just a description of the character's role in the film in general. It would be fine to use it in your description of the role she plays (e.g. "In We Are Your Friends, Ratajkowski plays X, the 'muse' of Zac Efron's character..." etc.).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I don't know the exact hollywood lingo for the significance of her role. However, she had a significant enough role in the early part of the film that multiple critics noticed that she seemed to be conspicuously absent from the later parts of the film (as noted in the current version of the article),--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prose — Repetition in several paragraphs, and confusing, non-encyclopedic sentences like "Her role as Vincent Chase's (played by Adrian Grenier) visually appealing love interest is described in a myriad of sexist ways in the press, with several mentions of her as the object of multiple affections"; "Other critics note in passing that Ratajkowski was among the key members of the solid supporting cast"; "her telegenic appearance".

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I am not sure what to make of this paragraph. The content has been copyedited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a lot more copyediting, but I'm not sure if GOCE can help you since I'm under the impression that they mostly focus on correcting grammatical errors etc. minor issues, but can't edit content, so when they encounter non-encyclopedic language, repetition or sentences that don't make sense, they can't do a lot. Especially not if they have to fear that the 'original' editor will be 'outraged' at them, like you describe above. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I would like to improve the statements that you have issues with above, but I don't understand what the issues are. GRuban, you have been a good intermediary in similar issues in the past. Can you explain the issue with these phrases.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one possible thought on bias. It is my opinion that with a controversy, we should present both sides with equal time and state Ratajkowski's opinion afterwards. However, critical commentary is different. If it is largely positive or negative we are suppose to present a summary that reflects that. Thus, the Lenny letter pargraph is all positive except for one critic who is negative while citing that she is in the minority. Do you have suggestions on this paragraph?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need to summarize. In general, my review can be summarized thus: a.) summarize and cut excessive detail; b.) be more neutral both in language and content. Since the article needs an overhaul, it's not ready for FA. I suggest you open a peer review, and allow some experienced editors who aren't fans of Ratajkowski to do what they see is best with the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm in THS' corner here, Tony. There's a lot of undue weight in the article; you need to summarize. That said, given our previous disputes I'm not going to oppose to avoid the impression I'm going after you personally. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to respond to this issue. I guess I will have to do more. Let's see what I can do over the next 72 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The ed17, Since you are on THS' side and I don't understand what that is, maybe you can help me. Undue weight is as vague as the bias. I have attempted to present both sides of controversies with equal time and then Ratajkowski's view. Is there undue weight on either side of the controversies or on Ratajkowski's view?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • TrueHeartSusie3, I am a bit puzzled by your request for more neutrality. This is Ratajkowski's bio. I believe that the article has presented both sides of any controversy with equal time (where appropriate) and then presented Ratajkowski's view in an encyclopedic manner. Do you think that this is the wrong thing to do? Where have I failed to do this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, first of all, the examples I listed are just examples, not an exhaustive list of every detail that should be corrected in the article. If you don't see how the article contains excessive detail and essentially seems like a puff piece, then I'm not sure I can help you, and you're certainly not ready for FAC. If you treat people who give you feedback the way you have done so far (see the comments Laser Brain was referring to; your bizarre insistence that I'm trying to erase the disagreeing views on the "BL" controversy; your being 'outraged' at TT), then don't be surprised if people don't want to interact with you. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comments from GRuban[edit]

As per last review (where I had a lot more to say) can still support. It hasn't gotten worse. --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator note: At this point I am inclined to close this nomination shortly. First, it was opened a week after the last nomination was archived without leave from coordinators, in contravention of our guidelines. Second, with ongoing unresolved issues carrying over from the last FAC, open opposition, and an open GOCE request, I don't feel it is appropriate to remain active just to make a TFA date. I am also not willing to tolerate comments about reviewers such as "fanatical opposers who have alterior motives". --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Laser_brain, Keep in mind that between FAC3 and FAC4 a solid attempt was made to address all unresolved issues from the prior FAC. See the diff. I am unsure if and when the rules changed, but it use to be the case that only unsuccessful nominations had to wait 2 weeks. The prior nomination was withdrawn with more supports than opposes. Is an open GOCE something that counts against a nomination? Now that GOCE has their backlog under control, it is actually very likely that a GOCE review could occur before a full FAC run. I will attempt to further address the open opposition.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any archived nomination is supposed to wait two weeks, whether or not it's withdrawn. That's been the case for quite some time. Nominations are expected to be fully prepared, so yes, an article with an open GOCE request strikes me as admittedly unprepared. The numbers of supports and opposes aren't important—the substance of them, is. --Laser brain (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • My intention was to withdraw and make one last run at a timely promotion. I have obviously run afoul of the rules by accident based on prior experience and lack of awareness of the rule changes. I would certainly appreciate a chance at a full run here at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. would you like me to withdraw the GOCE?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The GOCE is not the only issue here. The issue is that you withdrew a nomination with outstanding, substantial opposition and then opened a tactical re-nomination a week later after only a surface copyedit was done. This nomination has illustrated that substantive problems remain. You have been around this area of Wikipedia long enough to know that FAC is not the place where we pull articles up to standard. They are required to be fully prepared before nomination. I'm closing this now—further nominations require a two-week waiting period and I would expect to see deep work done to address concerns about sourcing and prose outlined by Ealdgyth, SlimVirgin, TrueHeartSusie3, and others. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2016 [2].

Circus Juventas[edit]

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 23:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Circus Juventas, North America's largest youth circus school located in lovely Saint Paul, Minnesota! The circus itself is now 22 years old and the article has existed for 12 of those years; this has been a long-running project of mine (with previous GA and peer reviews already undertaken, in addition to a previous FA nomination that didn't see too much action). I'm more than happy to address any concerns about the page you have and work to clarify as much as I can. Thanks for taking a look! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 23:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting topic. My first impression is that the balance of information is not quite right. There's to the dollar info about funding, but the word animal does not appear. Key info such as what acts are being taught and performed is missing or just touched upon. And is it just after school a few hours or is it an immersive full-on day school? Or both? The lead should make all of this clear. A final example: a bleachers accident is described before anything about performances. Is it possible to add more info about the school aspect (after-school, immersive, a bit about the curriculum)? And with some reordering of info it should be possible to get it to satisfy the FA criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting commentary, Edwininlondon! Thanks! I can tell you right now that Circus Juventas isn't an animal circus so I didn't even think to include the negative in the article body but I certainly will if I can find a source to that effect. I think breaking the last paragraph of the History section off into a Programs section and expanding it with a list of acts performed (and more about the extracurricular atmosphere) will be the best way to deal with your concerns and I'll try to get to this within a few days. I'll see what I can do. Thanks again, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 20:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after several weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2016 [3].

Gendarmerie of Haiti[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a collaborationist paramilitary police that existed in Haiti during the U.S. occupation in the early 20th century. It has recently been copyedited by the GoCE, has been promoted to GA status, is a former DYK article, is illustrated with three images, and has been rated as "high importance" by the Haiti WikiProject. LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Haitian_Gendarme.jpg: this was taken in 1920, but the current tag requires that it be published before 1923 - when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are now fixed, Nikkimaria. LavaBaron (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it seems a bit thin on detail, and I can't tell if it is comprehensive. The "History of the Gendarmerie D'haiti" reference was written by "Anonymous". Likewise, there is no author listed for "Military In Haitian History". Are these reliable sources? Can you clarify what is meant by "legation"? Is there any reason why this reference is not used? Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This just went up on the FAC Urgents list. I'll be happy to do a prose review after an effort has been made to address Praemonitus's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after several weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2016 [4].

Shahid Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having successfully written the FA-class biographies of 4 leading actresses of Hindi cinema, this is my first attempt to write about an actor. I believe, as with the previous articles, this one meets the FA-criteria. But of course, constructive comments from established editors will only help improve the article, and I expect plenty of those. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life
  • Do we know the name of the Russian magazine?
  • "He subsequently appeared in other television commercials," -examples?
  • "He subsequently appeared in other television commercials, and also featured in music videos for several performers, including the band Aryans and the singer Kumar Sanu.[10] Kapoor also" -rep of "also"

♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early work
  • "Writing for The Hindu, the critic Ziya Us Salam did not find him to be "hero material", writing" -rep of "writing"
  • You've linked sleeper hit but didn't in the lede. I'd link in lede too.
  • "Patcy N of Rediff.com praised his dancing skills but was wary of his imitation of Shah Rukh Khan's acting style: "He does it well in some scenes, overdoes it in others."" -the explanation and quote is a little redundant
  • "In a review for the former, Namrata Joshi of Outlook termed Kapoor "colourless" and criticised his pairing with Rimi Sen" -means little if you don't explain what role/s he played and what the films were about
Breakthrough
  • "a whodunit " -a bit informal isn't it?
  • " Kapoor played one of the seven suspects in the murder of an heiress, and in the Priyadarshan-directed Chup Chup Ke, he played " -rep of "played"
  • "He also worked on creating a different physique for the two brothers, a process that took him a year to accomplish." -a bit vague, I gather one buff, the other a skinny weed? Some elaboration on weight loss/gain and the physiques might help.
2013
  • "Kapoor suffered an accident during the filming of R... Rajkumar when a chemical spilled on his back and hands leading to burn injuries" - how does one "spill a chemical on back and hands"? Could use a better explanation
Personal life
  • "Kapoor practices vegetarianism, and credits the author Brian Hines' book Life is Fair for influencing this lifestyle choice.[95][96] He supports the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals organisation through advertisement campaigns.[97][98]" -this should be in a different paragraph, the last paragraph could use some splitting and a little revamping. There's a mish mash of material in there, unrelated content should be in a new paragraph

Overall it's a solid article, but I think the prose lacks a little flair. I know it's difficult for the contemporary Indian actors though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Dr. Blofeld. All your comments have been addressed. Yeah, with the lack of literature available on contemporary actors, it's an uphill task to write about them. I guess we just have to make do with what is available. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards support anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blofeld! Let me know if I can improve it some more. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after several weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2016 [5].

Jane Austen[edit]

Nominator(s): Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British novelist Jane Austen which has been brought up to date and appears ready for nomination. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's fantastic to see an article on such an important writer here at FAC, but I have an initial comment: I note that Tim said in his recent GA review that "[w]ith the addition of a substantial analysis of the works this could well be a candidate for Featured Article in due course". It seems that nothing particularly substantial has been added since the article's promotion to GA status; I'm incline to agree with Tim (from just a glance at the article) that this is lacking and would be necessary to take the article to FA status. Is this perhaps a little premature? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Riley did a strong review of the article and did mention this as a possiblity. I'm not sure that he read the sibling FA article on the Reception history of Jane Austen which covers much of that material already. The policy for FA Biography pages appears to have moved away from including "Main Works" sections when the individual works for the author are already linked in the article, for example, in the FA for Anton Chekhov. Also, we already have sibling pages for each of her novels as well which are not stubs or starts, and which are linked as the associated "main articles" for each of the books (they are currently "B"-class and "C"-class articles for the most part, for example, Mansfield Park). Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you haven't met her, Ruby2010 has written a number of featured articles on film adaptations of Austen's work, and so may be someone to get in touch with about this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two of the film versions (including the nice Knightley Pride and Prejudice film) are at FA peer review status and they are both linked in the 21-century section of this article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from jimknut
  • "Her books are often used to inspire the other cultural arts as well with numerous film productions of her novels starting as early as the 1940s with Laurence Olivier's leading role in Pride and Prejudice to new productions in the 21st century starring such leading actresses as Keira Knightley, Kate Beckinsale and Chloë Sevigny." — Why not say "1940" instead of "the 1940s" and also provide a link to the film version (i.e. Pride and Prejudice)? Jimknut (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly 1940 and it is currently mentioned in the Twentieth century section towards the end of the article. Adding a link to it in the lede should be nice. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ruby2010

Firstly, I'd like to thank Fountains-of-Paris for taking this article on – Austen's article has always intimidated me, especially after seeing the great work that the late Wadewitz put into it! This is not an easy thing to tackle. That said, I agree with J Milburn that the nomination is premature (thanks for the ping, Josh). I haven't had a chance to give a full read to the article yet, but some problems in the lead stand out to me (enough where I think an entire lead rewrite may be in order – I've provided some suggestions below). Also, the Bibliography section contains many articles sources that are not being used in the article (but perhaps could be if you had access to them?).

The are actually two versions of the Lede available now. Tim Riley requested that the previous one (which seems to parallel your requests) be deleted and replaced by this new one. For the moment, I will mark in your corrections listed below into the current Lede though we always have the other version there if it is needed. The items in the Bibliography can be trimmed as needed if they are un-needed or redundant citations, or kept as "See also" items if preferred. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the GA review. I think Tim meant that those areas in the article need to be added/expanded (not removed from the lead entirely). He did a good job listing various topics that absolutely need to be covered (her literary realism, irony and social commentary, etc.). Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • First mention of Pride and Prejudice needs link
Now linked. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...known principally for her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the novels of sensibility of the end of the 18th century." I find this sentence unclear and a bit vague. Shouldn't an introductory sentence mention the genre of her novels? Or that her novels were social commentaries on her era? Those are what she is known for, not her "critique and comment upon the [18th century] novels of sensibility" (though I think that should still be included somewhere, but perhaps not in the lead).
The genre may be correctly identified as "novels of sensibility of the British landed aristocracy at the end of the 18th century." This has been placed in to the Lede now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think that sentence makes even less sense now. I like this sentence from the original lead: "...was an English novelist whose works of romantic fiction, set among the landed gentry, earned her a place as one of the most widely read writers in English literature. Her realism, biting irony and social commentary as well as her acclaimed plots have gained her historical importance among scholars and critics." It's an excellent summary and displays her significance in a clear way. Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why skip so abruptly from P&P to Mansfield Park? And actually, I feel the second and third paragraphs should be swapped, or perhaps even merged. Start with her first novel's immediate impact and reception, then work your way forward from there (with P&P's success, Mansfield's Park's comparative lack of popularity, etc.). Then discuss events since her death (her nephew's memoirs, current printings, etc).
P&P is Austen's magnum opus and is usually taken as a point of entry before getting into the more general discussion of her writings. If your wording was meant to say "first published novel" then that would be Sense and Sensibility. P&P was first drafted under the title First Impressions by Austen in an early form ten years before S&S became the first published novel released to the public. P&P is the usual starting point for discussing Austen because it was her most popular novel during her lifetime. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would start chronologically (as I see the original lead did). So begin with S&S, since that was her first published work. Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries Austen's writings have inspired a large number of critical essays as well as books of critical essays and anthologies..." --> "During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries Austen's writings have inspired a large number of critical essays and anthologies..."
Your wording is now in the Lede. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her books are often used to inspire the other cultural arts..." Remove "the". And I'm unclear what you mean here. I think that whole sentence may need a rewrite. Mention her specific areas of impact: the fact she's credited with helping inspire the Regency romance literary genre, increasing interest in her era, etc (this may be another failing of the article as a whole; there's no impact/legacy section like you see with other literary FAs such as George Bernard Shaw and Shakespeare).
There is already an FA sibling article titled Reception history of Jane Austen which covers much of what you mention in your question here. I do have a concern not to duplicate in the Bio article here what is already covered in the FA sibling article on the Reception history (just linked) which is of fairly high quality. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I am altering the text to refer to the films in which they appear in the same format as the mention of Olivier in P&P. Your further comments on the main body of the article would be appreciated since your comments on the Lede are being well targeted. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawing. I've mentioned a few areas for improvement with the body (creating sections on her legacy/influence, style/themes, and either using or moving the unused sources in the Bibliography section). That may take a while, which is why I think this nomination should be withdrawn (that way you won't feel rushed while editing). I'm sorry if the feedback here has seemed critical so far, but that's usually how FA works ("It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.") We all want the same thing: an excellent article that clearly summarizes her life. I can tell you feel passionately about this subject, so don't be discouraged! Going forward, I recommend reading similar featured articles in order to gain ideas (this article also contains some good advice). Please feel free to ping me or post on my talkpage if you'd like any additional feedback. Best, Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this isn't what a Featured Article on Jane Austen should look like. There's no section at all covering her themes or writing style, both of which are crucial to an understanding of her work. There's also no Legacy section, and I don't see all the "reception" stuff as a replacement for that. There should be a more general summary of her legacy and impact. I only read the lead all the way through, but that flagged up problems. The sentence "her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the novels of sensibility of the British landed gentry at the end of the 18th century" is very clunky. Novels comment upon the novels? And on that note, the word novel/novelist appears five times in the first two sentences alone. It appears another five times in the next two paragraphs. The lead has repetition, mentioning twice that P&P was the most acclaimed novel of her lifetime, and generally just talking about her reception and publication history. It doesn't actually talk about her life at all - the lead tells me nothing about her childhood, for instance. This previous version of the lead was much better. Even ignoring the prose, however, the lack of analytical coverage is enough for me to oppose. Thanks for working on the article, I hope you'll continue to do so, but it shouldn't become Featured in this state. --80.43.205.25 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'll be archiving this shortly based on comments above, so that work can be done away from the pressure of the FAC process; per Ruby's suggestions, one fairly recent novelist FA that includes a style and themes section is Ian Fleming, and there may be others I can't recall right now. After work has been done, you can re-nominate here after a minimum of two weeks has passed, per FAC instructions (a Peer Review might be in order to review changes first). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest Ernest Hemingway and Maya Angelou as excellent examples of writer articles that could help build this one. Good luck to the nominator. --80.43.205.25 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2016 [6].

The Bitch Is Back (Veronica Mars)[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna(talk to me!) 20:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all FAC participants! This article is about the series finale of Veronica Mars. Revamping episode articles for this television series has been my biggest project since I started editing. This is my first FAC candidacy within this topic, although I have nearly thirty GAs that are on VM episode articles. I believe that it is a very comprehensive article (my longest episode article) that meets all the criteria. Thanks to any willing reviewers in advance! Johanna(talk to me!) 20:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Happy to offer a review with the caveat that I have only heard of this programme through seeing your GA nominations!

  • "he beat up Piz" Is "beat up" not a little vernacular?
  • Replaced with "assaulted"
  • Done.
  • "Keith (Enrico Colantoni) faces the upcoming Sheriff's election." Is he standing? It's not fully clear from the lead in what way he is "facing" this.
  • Done. See my new wording.
  • "the series was announced that it would not return for a fourth season in any form at the network's Upfront conference several days before the episode's airing" This is difficult to follow. I don't understand what the first few words mean, and perhaps you could specify the name of the episode.
  • Simplified and specified.
  • "Thomas and Ruggiero had to remove seven minutes of material from the original cut, and they wanted to create an ambiguous finale that did not resolve everything neatly." Are these things related?
  • No, so I split it into two sentences.
  • This doesn't bother me too much, but I know some people like to keep plot sections purely in-universe; the opening clause would be problematic from that perspective. Just a heads-up.
  • "denies that this is the truth" What is? Do you mean something like "denies that the tape is authentic"?
  • "did not upload the tape" Can you upload a tape? "upload the footage", maybe? Or even "upload the footage to the internet"?
  • You only name one actor in the plot section- consistency would be good!
  • The reason for this is to prevent multiple linking. I think that all other actors have already been mentioned in the lead, so linking them in the plot section would be over the top, in my opinion. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keith questions Veronica about whether or not she is in trouble" I'm not clear on what is meant, here.
  • It was for not immediately informing the police of Veronica's involvement in the break-in once he found out. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leading to Logan beating him up" Again, a little informal
  • "Veronica returns the tape to Jake Kane on the condition that he does not tell her father" Who doesn't tell whose father what?
  • I'm struggling with the plot; what charges are being pressed against Keith?
  • "while the scene featured heavy interference by Fields" I don't follow
  • "finalizing the final script" A bit repetitive.
  • "including a scene between Veronica and Leo" Do you mean something like "including a scene featuring dialogue between Veronica and Leo"? Or perhaps "including a scene featuring Veronica and Leo"?
  • "When writing the episode, he tried to create an episode so ambiguous note that it would be difficult for The CW not to renew the show." Clumsy
  • "In promos for the episode" "Promos" is informal
  • "the day after the series' return" What does this mean?
  • It was a clumsily written reference to a hiatus. Changed.
  • "the CW", "The CW" or just "CW"? You're inconsistent
  • "denied this testimony" That's not testimony
  • "in medias res" What does that mean?
  • It's a term for when a piece of storytelling begins in the middle of the narrative and then backs up. I wikilinked to the page. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Veronica talking to a teacher, donning a teenage disguise" She's putting a disguise on as she's talking to the teacher? The teacher is putting on a disguise as (s)he talks to Veronica? One party is disguised as a teenager at the time?
  • "The pitch was presented to the network on May 2, 2007." Are you taking sides, here?
  • I am honestly not sure what you mean. What are you referring to? Considering that Thomas and a network representative confirmed the date, I think it's safe to assume that that happened. However, if you want, I can just say that it was scheduled to be presented on that date.
  • "At the CW Upfront conference, where the network announces its lineup for the following television season, critic Michael Ausiello asked Ostroff about the fate of the show, to which she responded that it was possible that Thomas and Bell were going to work together on another show, although that possibility was unlikely." Could this sentence be split?
  • "attribute this to the writers" It would be odd not to attribute it to the writers; do you mean that he did not blame or criticise the writers for this?
  • "still take away important themes" Do people take themes from episodes? You can identify themes, and you can take messages
  • That reminds me--I forgot to write a themes section I had planned! I will do that soon. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "early noir influences" Wikilink?
  • "returned to the form of the show's earlier episodes for the show" What does this mean?
  • I think the long quote from Kaiser could probably be converted into a blockquote.
  • "believing that it showed how the pair were not in fact that different after all" Which pair?
  • "a good season finale that did not work as a series finale" I don't follow.
  • "positive and ambiguous towards the episode" What does this mean?
  • "However, she did not view the finale as being resentful" How can a finale be resentful? Why "however"?
  • "The TV Addict commended" I'm not keen on this kind of personification; also, you italicise the name in the footnote. Italics or not?
  • "she praised the episode if it had been a season finale" What does this mean?
  • As a general comment on the reception section: Perhaps it would be better to structure it thematically, rather than by reviewer.
  • Also, quotes should always be cited, even if they appear in captions!

I think FA might be achievable here, but it needs a smidge more work yet. Please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Hi again Josh! I have fixed most of your comments. Everything that does not have an inline citation has been done, but read my replies to your comments to see what I have left. I have to write a Themes section, cite quotes, and sort the reception section into themes. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Josh's copy editing has improved the article but the prose still falls well below FA standard. I think it needs much more then a smidge. The style is amateurish and in places unintelligible. It needs too much work for corrections to take place at FAC. I suggest withdrawal. Graham Beards (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Graham Beards: I think you'll be surprised at how much I can get done in a short amount of time. :) If you could point me towards a few sections/paragraphs that need work, that would be helpful. I have responded to all of Josh's prose comments to me, which should have fixed at least some of your concerns. However, I will learn from this mistake and get my VM articles copyedited before taking them to FAC. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not going to oblige. The article is not ready for nomination and FAC is not the place to do all this work. It is not fair on other nominations, which have been better prepared. I suggest withdrawal and renomination after substantial improvements. Graham Beards (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2016 [7].

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

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]

Comments from GRuban[edit]

  • 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
    • 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]

  • Most of these are good now, with a few minor exceptions I trust we'll work out. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRuban, I saw you struck your support with the hope that it was temporary. I have tried to address the issue in which you concurred with SV. If I am not there yet, give me more direction. I have another 48 hours where I can spend time on the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not there yet, I'm afraid, though I appreciate the effort. I'm sorry that you only have 48 hours, as I'm not sure it'll be enough (with the new text you're adding, you're possibly resolving some issues, but adding others, among them grammar/style), but let's try.
        • I just mean Friday to Monday I will again not be a useful editor. Next week Tuesday through Thursday I will be available again. I am just saying that I need your attention Tuesday through Thursday.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence "A YouTube video about the making of the "Love Somebody" video shows that it was shot on January 16, 2013." - can be compressed into "shot on Jan 16..." and stuck onto the previous sentence, it's just a source.
      • The "Ratajkowski said she felt the attention given to the nudity..." paragraph is ER reacting to public reaction. Move it after the next 2 paragraphs which are about the public reaction.
      • Throughout you're mixing present tense (assert, feel, point) with past (was controversial, said). Pick one; I think past is better.
        • MOS:TENSE is confusing because certain things are suppose to be present tense and others are suppose to be past tense. I think a film is a past event, but reviews about a film are current opinions to be written in the present. However, I believe a song is an ongoing present tense subject. I am not averse to being corrected on my changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • ""Blurred Lines" was controversial because some feel it promotes a man's freedom to vanquish women at will, while others assert it promotes female power and freedom in sexual congress. " - er ... I'm pretty sure the people who thought it was sexist greatly outnumber, and feel stronger about it, than those who asserted it promoted female power; and many of the apologists were directly involved with the video. The CBC article by Andrea Warner was quite explicit: "This isn’t satire, post-post irony or freedom of speech. This is war." We should be clear this is not balanced.
        • This is a tough thing to balance. This is the biography and not the BL article. I am trying not to place WP:UNDUE weight on the controversy. Basically, I have tried to present enough information for the readers to understand both sides of the four facets of the controversy that I mention in the newly expanded LEAD. I will stick a bit more her about convictions, but this article is not really the place for much more detail in that regard is it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added the CBC article and the fact that the song was widely banned at Universities. This is not the BL article, so I don't know how much more belongs in her bio. I think any more detail belongs in the BL article directly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see anything here questioning ER's feminism; I gave 2 links below that do so, and I think more can be found from searching with the other 2 search engine links I gave. It's all right for this to be less than ER's own statements, and those supporting her, as the ones questioning her feminism seem to be in the minority, but they do exist and should be mentioned.
        • I think it is now clear why her femism is questioned. I have even added a sentence in the LEAD summarizing the controversy. Oddly, I don't find others stating the controversy, but rather mostly Ratajkowski saying others say there is a controversy. Regardless, I have summarized the WP:RS on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "she was featured by the Los Angeles-based jewelry designer as the face of her Spring 2016 campaign wearing body chains, rings, bracelets, pendants, and chokers" ... er, yes, but that's sort of avoiding the main issue, which is that she was featured wearing basically ONLY body chains, rings, bracelets, pendants, and chokers. That's why the campaign drew the attention it did from the sources, as I wrote, the sources make a big deal of her almost complete nudity. Models wearing rings is no big deal. Models wearing solely rings is. --GRuban (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In Complex, She also said" - lower case S
      • The BL plagiarism controversy doesn't seem to bear on ER much; she's not being accused of plagiarism, she just danced. (This is in contrast to the accusation of sexism, her appearance in the video is an important part of that.)
        • That paragraph is an attempt to describe why a single music video could launch a career. It gives three points 1.) The song was popular around the world in 2013, 2.) It was popular in her home country for an unusually long time in 2013, 3.)After months of popularity as evidenced in the music charts, the song remained prominent for a much longer time due to news coverage. She was not involved in the plaguarism issue, but it probably contributed greatly to her popularity by keeping the song in people's minds until she could escalate her acting career and modelling careers to higher levels.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still wouldn't put it in myself, but can accept it. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRuban, I have attempted to address all of your latest concerns. Further feedback is welcome. I don't expect to do much more editing for the next 12 hours as I prepare to shoot the 2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game here in Chicago tonight, but I will be back online tonight for 24 hours before 4 hard days of driving. So if you can leave me any further concerns by tonight, I will attempt to address them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 30 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]
  • GRuban, since you are the discussant in this review that has paid the most attention to the content I was hoping you might have an opinion on whether I should mention her latest print campaign that is getting major press. Do we want to include ad campaigns that get a lot of press? See Esquire, Austrailian Elle, In Style, MSN, The Sun, New.com.au, and [8]. I am contemplating the propriety of adding this campaign to her article. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it's worth a sentence, due to, as you write, the extensive coverage it's gotten, but not more than that - I haven't read all the sources, but the first few seem to all be saying the same things: "she's doing an ad campaign, look, mostly naked photos!", which is not really that different from the rest of her oeuvre. So it would be one more representative example of her work; since we don't have countless numbers of such examples yet, it is worth spending one sentence on it. The term "propriety", though, doesn't really apply to this article, which is something I think both Emily Ratajkowski herself and SarahSV would agree on. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a separate note, I've read SarahSVs comments, and agree with a number of them, especially her point 3. A noticeable fraction of the article is Ratajkowski defending herself against claims that Blurred Lines is inherently sexist... but we don't present those claims, just her defense. That's not balanced. Sarah's points 2 and 5 can both be satisfied, at least partly, by removing the parts that depend on the gossip papers (for example: "Emily Ratajkowski displays her cleavage ... " ahem). I think she's gotten enough coverage from non-gossip sources that we can live without that. I'm afraid there is no way to fulfill "avoid presenting women as "objects of heterosexual male appreciation."", since that's a noticeable fraction of Ratajkowski's career, but Sarah's other points have points, so to speak. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I welcome advice and assistance in contextualizing the sexist claims regarding the video. I am on a short clock for until Monday night or Tuesday. I will attempt to respond as soon as I can but would welcome assistance in presenting the controversy in proper balance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRuban, I am awaiting feedback above. However, I also need your opinion on this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you addressed my comments well. Here are a few minor issues that I'm sure you'll get to. I would like to read what SarahSV has to say about the latest version, though, as at least once she has been able to change my mind about approving. I won't necessarily agree with her (I already disagree with her on some points: hair and eye color on a model are fine; that someone's parents weren't married is unusual enough to be worth a line; ) but her arguments are always well written and sure to be interesting. The IP's edit removing the feminist controversy from the lead is, strangely enough, probably good. I think we should probably remove that she describes herself as a feminist from the lead altogether, as it's controversial, as SarahSV writes, and yet, we could only find one good source contesting it, so it's giving that one source too much weight to put it in the lead. Leave the bit about her being an activist in the lead, and keep the "feminist" controversy in the activism section. This might change if Sarah can find more sources contesting ER's feminism.
        • I have taken another stab at discussing being a feminist in the WP:LEAD. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was looking for more reliable sources about ER's feminism being questioned, and I found one; sort of. The source is reliable, the BBC, though I'm not at all sure that Sarah will want to be associated with the questioner, one Piers Morgan. [9]. There is already a section on the Kardashian photo that this should go in. That at least makes 2 questioning ER's feminism; without at least two, it's wp:undue weight to mention it in the lead. Please feel free to find even better sources if you like (you, in this case, being plural, Tony or Sarah or whoever is interested). --GRuban (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you are saying that we established a controversy about her feminism. A true controversy is something that should be in the LEAD. We have one critic saying she may be an opportunist and another saying she is a pseudo feminist, while a third says she is truly a feminist. Meanwhile her actions are being covered widely as a statement of some kind related to the female body. The lead says "Ratajkowski considers herself a feminist. Some support this claim, while others have questioned and challenged her on it." We present a supporter, a challenger and a questioner in the current version of the article. I think the current version of the lead hits it on the head in terms of summarizing the body, but feel free to suggest a specific revision.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sarah found an even better source that questions ER's feminism (it was just written yesterday, so I won't kick myself for not finding it when I looked): Charlotte Gill, "Kim Kardashian and Emily Ratajkowski are no feminists", The Independent, 1 April 2016. It discusses the Kardashian photo situation without being Piers Morgan (which is a noticeable plus). I think it would work fine in that section. In direct response to your paragraph, though, I'm not at all sure that "a true controversy is something that should be in the lead"; just because something is controversial doesn't necessarily mean it's important. Jimbo Wales's birth date is controversial, but surely doesn't make that much of an impact on his life. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article and I am not convinced the controversy about ER's feminism is one of them. From reading the article, she's primarily a model, secondarily an actress, her activism is tertiary, and this "is she a real feminist" controversy is probably a part of her being an activist, and not the most important part. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • GRuban, Actually, I would appreciate your advice on the latest stance by SlimVirgin. I do not understand her comment that I am not making progress. If you can express a substantive actionable issue for me to address, I welcome that. I understand that the article could be improved by fresh eyes, but I can't do that myself. I have requested a source review at WT:FAC. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are multiple issues in that diff link. The "naked photo" issue, I am conflicted on, I think I somewhat agree with Sarah, but not enough to oppose over, at least partly because the "it's a non-free image" that she is technically objecting about isn't really her main objection, which is that we would be objectifying women by displaying that photo, free or not. The "no progress is being made" issue is also twofold - you have made lots of progress on adding criticism of Blurred Lines and ER's claim to feminism, but Sarah's main objection there is about the "grammar, punctuation, repetition and flow", which, I am afraid, I can't help directly with very much. When I find a specific issue I point it out, but when I read a sentence that seems awkward, I can't always explain how to make it better. (That's one of the reasons I don't do much in FAs!) You could try and just rewrite the sentences that Sarah points out, all of them, then, after demonstrating that you are actively trying to work with her on this, ask her if that made them better. --GRuban (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • You also need to get with the times. It is not the case that nude photography=objectification of women. Ratajkowski is proud of that photo as the photo that propelled her career. She is not out there suing anyone about it. She also exhibits an ongoing pride in publishing nude photos of herself with Time yesterday publishing an article on her nude postings noting her opinion that nudity does not equal trashy. Have you been following the recent additions to the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I wrote, I'm not going to oppose over this. It's just that I can see both sides, and think that Sarah has a noticeable point. Yes, I understand Ratajkowski doesn't see it as derogatory to her; but there are plenty of women readers who will look at it and see it as derogatory to them. As women. Justly or not, that's what they will see. They won't look at what the naked woman on the cover of the men's magazine thinks, they will merely look at the fact she is there, naked, on the cover of the men's magazine, there in our Featured Article. There was a somewhat similar issue recently at TFA, in fact, a conflict about putting Hitler Diaries as Wikipedia:Today's featured article on April Fool's Day. The authors of the article said that it wasn't meant to offend anyone by implying that we should treat Hitler as a funny joke. Yet that is how it would have been received. Justly or not. Of course this isn't to the same scale, which is why I'm not going to oppose over it, but it is in the same vein. Again, I can also see the other side, so I'm not going to oppose over this, so if you want to argue with me about it, you may, but you'll be wasting your energies that would be more useful on something I will oppose over, or someone who will oppose over it. --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • GRuban, Well, there are two sides to every story. There are people offended that WP has maps recognizing certain boundaries of the Palestine (region). WP should not remove such maps. The image serves a clear purpose and has passed image review whether SV wishes to ignore that purpose or not. I am not going to look at this article much again until next Tuesday. I may look at some of the prose, but I am hoping that the newly involved editor will to a copyedit in the mean time. I concede that the article may not pass at TFA, but let me try to get it through FAC first.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Activism section - "Ratajkowski, is outspoken on her interest in going beyond" - remove comma, and what does "outspoken on her interest" mean? Can those half-dozen words be removed and just say what she supports? --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the grammar is still a problem and the sentence doesn't really mean anything: "Ratajkowski is outspoken on her interest in using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality." [10] Outspoken about an interest in the implications of speaking out?
I think you should ask that the nomination be archived. Better to give yourself some distance (i.e. don't read it for a while), then come back with fresh eyes, and when you've finished the first round of improvements, nominate it for peer review. SarahSV (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I am still making progress, have more supports than opposes, and getting other interested editors involved. I am up against a time constraint in regards to my pursuit of a 25th birthday WP:TFA. I will continue to respond as time allows.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think you should not nominate this for the main page for her 25th (or any other) birthday. That would come across as a little personal and strange, and it again makes the article appear promotional. SarahSV (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, That is incredibly non-sequitur. WP:TFA values articles on round number anniversaries, birthdays. Since when is nominating an article based on a birthday personal, strange or promotional. I have done so in the past, most recently for Tommy Amaker's 50th birthday. The only reason it was personal is that I am a University of Michigan alum and he is a former Michigan Wolverines men's basketball coach. There is nothing wrong with that type of personal connection. I am a fan of Michigan basketball as I am a fan of Ms. Ratajkowski. There is nothing promotional about it. How is it any different for me to nominate Ratajkowski for her 25th birthday than to have nominated Amaker for his 50th?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I agree with Tony here; there is nothing wrong with trying to feature an article on the subject's birthday. --GRuban (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRuban and SlimVirgin, I am experimenting with a modelling coverography (like a discography or filmography) at Chiara_Ferragni#Modelling_covers. Should I add something like that to Emily Ratajkowski. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#Coverographies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How large will it turn out to be? We don't want to take up most of the already pretty large article with a list. --GRuban (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it will be long eventually, but that is good. It is like a discography or filmography. Almost all successful performers have separate articles for theirs when they become long.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meh. I somehow think it takes less time to pose for a cover than to write a book or record a disc or have a non-bit role in a film. In fact, I think it takes a comparable amount of time to, say, writing a single article for a journalist; in articles about journalists, we do list a few of their most notable articles, but we don't list every single one they ever wrote. Similarly, I think we probably want to list a few of the most notable covers, but not every single one. I would think it would give more ammunition to the people saying that there is unnecessary detail. But I won't necessarily oppose over it, we'd have to see what it looks like. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, looking over the article and comparing to Sarah's well organized and legitimate objections.
    • 1, the main one, well-written prose, as I wrote, I am not perfect at, where I can find specific tweaks I'll present them, and you've been good at fixing them, so I assume you will keep doing this. No objection from me.
    • 2, verifiable against high quality sources, Sarah has a point. You removed some, but still have several lines sourced to The Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, and Coed, which are tabloids and gossip mags. Replace them with better sources (for example, here are some better sources for ER supporting Sanders Marie Claire women's/fashion mag; Washington Examiner, political mag; Huffington Post, political online; there are others) or if you can't, remove the lines. There is plenty of content sourced by reliable sources, that we can afford to lose a few lines that can only be sourced to tabloids.
    • 3, neutrality meaning documenting criticism of Blurred Lines and ER's feminism, this was the main one that I brought up, and you've been very responsive. No objection left.
    • 4, non-free images: as I wrote, that seems a cover for the real objection, which is that the image may be seen as offensive to some readers, and while I personally agree with Sarah, I can see your view enough that I won't oppose over it.
    • 5, unnecessary detail, you've been fairly responsive to requests to remove irrelevant content, the content that is left I see as an extension of #2 - removing the lines that can only be sourced to low quality sources will leave the ones that higher quality sources write about, which is a fair argument that they could be necessary.
So essentially we're down to Sarah's point #2. If you remove the low quality sources, and where necessary removing the content that can only be sourced to them, and will keep being responsive to what little individual issues can be found, I will support. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, Do I have you back on board?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You got most of it. I'd recommend still removing
  • The Daily Something (tabloid) article "‘Blurred Lines’ hottie is feeling the Bern" (I think I give better sources for her Sanders support somewhere around here)
  • "She got the part through a New York City "cattle call" audition and a subsequent Los Angeles reading with Affleck and Fincher.[79] Fincher was seeking an actress who could bring a divisive element to the film." - those seem too much detail. So she got a small part through an audition and a reading, that's pretty much how actresses get parts; the "divisive element" is a bit vague. Either specify what it means or remove it ... but only specify it if it is really important, and not just any attractive actress would have done ... which seems unlikely.
  • "Gill ... admits she is in the minority, but felt " - this is one tense mix I won't accept. Either both present or both past.
  • same sentence "...that the letter was trite and boring" - the article does not say trite, it says rambling and dull. I can accept boring as a synonym to dull, but can't see trite as a synonym of either that or rambling. I think you should just say rambling and dull, two words, especially when specifically attributed to Gill, are not plagiarism.
  • I don't think so. Trite means "cliche", "overused", "banal",[11] while "pass the violin" means "melodramatic", "overemotional", "exaggerated"; not really the same thing. Arguably "pass the violin" really means "I don't like her, so want to write a petty personal attack", but we can't write that. Gad what a mean article. IMHO, the important lines in Gill's article aren't the criticisms of ER's partial autobiography, as much as lines like: "she wants to fight against the objectification and oppression of women’s bodies, yet she happily profits from her ability to titillate men... endorsed art that demeans and dehumanises femkind..." etc. ("Femkind"? Yes, femkind. When you write for the Independent you get to make up words.) --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but honestly that's nitpicking. I'll assume you'll either do those or present strong reasons why not, assuming you do, I can support. --GRuban (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah commenting on my comments based on her comments... we must go deeper...
Hang on, GRuban, I object to your comment that my opposition to the non-free image is "a cover for the real objection, which is that the image may be seen as offensive to some readers." It isn't a cover for anything, and certainly not that it might seem offensive to some readers, a point I haven't raised at all.
My objection to the image is that it is a non-free, professional image of a living person, and that the policy is being ignored because it's an image of a naked woman. Its use here is sexist and gratuitous, both directly but also indirectly because the usual objections to non-free in BLPs have been magically suspended for it. The use of the image (along with other factors) makes this appear to be an article written by men for men, and this is exactly the sort of thing we're supposed to look out for on Wikipedia.
I've had several FAs promoted and I've had to remove non-free images that I felt were important. I've reviewed around 120 FACs, including several image reviews, and I've watched hundreds more, so I know that the image policies are strictly applied at FAC.
No convincing argument has been made that the image satisfies: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." See WP:FACR and WP:NFCC. SarahSV (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, this seems to be more WP:POV arguing. How are you absolutely certain that Masem here and Masem &Elcobbola in FAC2 took one look at the image and said "We absolutely must keep this naked hottie for all to see." rather than considered WP:NFCC. I too am an experienced FAC nominator. I am not as sure as you are that the first thing the image reviewers look for is a way to get hot nude images on WP. I can't tell you how many images I have had to remove from articles for promotion. At FAC Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain and at GAC Joanne Gair have had so many helpful images removed it still hurts. Every time I look at Gair's article I wonder why I was forced to choose between the Eat 'Em and Smile cover and the Kaleidoscope cover.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict, this was responding to SarahSV two paragraphs above): In case I was not clear, this is a list of my objections, even though they were based on your excellent list; I'm not claiming that I'm strictly restating your objections here, or that answering my objections will necessarily satisfy yours. Obviously my writing that this seems like a cover is not simply restating your view, it's my opinion of it; you don't just say "it's non-free use" and stop there, every time you say "it's non-free use and it's sexist". And your writing "it's sexist" is the same as "offensive to some readers", specifically because we know for a fact that at least one rather important person doesn't think it's sexist, namely Ratajkowski. She feels quite strongly that her right to pose sexily is feminist, in fact; and at least in the reliable sources we have found for this article she's gotten more support for saying that than she has gotten criticism. So we can't claim "it's sexist" as some sort of absolute fact as "it's black and white" or "it's a magazine cover" or "she's naked", it is an opinion; "it's sexist" is only going to be considered true by some readers. And as to the NFCC point as such, well, Tony responds that it is a vital artistic work; I'm not that up on the distinction there, so have to leave any objection to those who are. I similarly won't be backing the image as vital to the article either. Anyway, that's my explanation for why I'm not objecting based on it. What's your point? That I should be objecting based on this? Well, while I respect you highly, we are different people. Or is it that you think that I object to your objection? I don't, and in fact agree that the image will be perceived as sexist by a large fraction of viewers. It's just that many of those readers who will think the image is sexist will, as you brought up in point 3, consider most of Ratajkowski's career to be sexist, and will object to us featuring her article at all, not just this image in it. After all, this image is, basically, what she does. So while I personally would prefer we feature the article and not the image, and therefore offend fewer readers, I am not going to oppose promotion just on that splitting of hairs. You may, of course, and I don't see your objection here as invalid, just not strong enough for me, personally, to back to the extent of opposing promoting the article over. OK? --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's sexist is not the same (not the same at all) as saying it might be offensive to some readers. We wouldn't object to a racist article just because some readers might be offended.
I don't want to insult anyone, but I'm experiencing two men (particularly Tony) explain to me what feminism and sexism are. I see an image review from someone involved in Gamergate. And I see an article about a woman that was clearly written by a man for men. So this is a very typical issue in terms of Wikipedia's sexism, a problem that has been noticed by many mainstream sources, not only by me.
That's over and above that the article is poorly written, a point noted in all the FACs (writing from memory). Good writing isn't something that is tacked on at the end, something a copy editor can quickly offer. Writing reflects the way the writer structures their thoughts.
A good writer would find words to deal (briefly) with the sexism allegations against the subject, and would find a way to write this article so that it didn't reflect the sexism of many of the sources. That's the kind of high-quality, disinterested writing I hope Tony can find for this piece, either by doing it himself or by finding someone to help. But I think he needs space to think about it. Trying to achieve it while it's at FAC won't work. SarahSV (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Yes, that did hurt; thanks for saying it wasn't intended to. If it seemed like I was trying to explain to you feminism or sexism are, I apologize; that was not my intent. But will you agree that Ratajkowski does go to some lengths to explain what they are? And that she disagrees that the picture is sexist? And that she is backed in her opinion on that by lots of sources, cited in the article? Again, I more agree with your opinion, if I am allowed to call it an opinion. But it does seem that your view is that what you are saying is fact, while what she is saying is mere opinion. --GRuban (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. I'm not sure what you mean about R's view of the picture. I feel as though I'm having to argue that the grass is green, and this is another common experience for women on Wikipedia. I can't keep doing it, so this may have to be my last comment on this point.
Looking at it in terms of policy: there is a mainstream opinion among high-quality sources that the video is misogynist, as are the lyrics. The article must reflect the mainstream view, per WP:DUE. The article can include R's view and other minority views in proportion, but it ought not to present the minority view as a majority one, or place the minority view in WP's voice. SarahSV (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with that second paragraph, but don't see how it leads to objection. Does that bear in any way on the image in our article? Because I don't see how. Or is your objection that the article still doesn't reflect that mainstream view of BL? Well, then, we're veering off topic ... but I guess we can do that. I don't think that the article does represent the mainstream view as a minority, I do think the article has been improved to the point that it clearly states that BL was criticized more than supported by the world, but it was supported by ER. "Over 20 University student unions banned or condemned the song", that's pretty clear the world objected to it. The fact that it gives most space to ER's views - well, they're her views, the article isn't about BL, it's about her, so as long as it makes clear that these are her views, not the majority opinion, that's perfectly appropriate. It's like it lets her say that she was pressured growing up without giving equal time to her peers and parents, though she is one and they are many; or that she didn't like her college, even though, no doubt, the majority opinion is that it's a fine college; surely we won't be insisting that every time she gives an opinion, the world's opinion be automatically given more space than hers? Again, this is the space for my objections. I don't object due to this. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't write much about controversial topics. I am not sure what proper presentation is for controversial topics. I have presented about equal weight on both sides of the argument of whether the song is sexist. However, I have also presented equal time to both sides of the debate of whether Ratajkowski has a feminist message. I think far more support her arguments than oppose. I think presenting equal time to both sides is the fairest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Cirt[edit]

Comments from Cirt (addressed) — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 30 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]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I proposed a way to trim the remaining quote. -Sigeng (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was about to ponder the quote situation. I can support the remaining quote. However, what is left is so sparse, I am almost inclined to just roll it into the prose. In fact, I would probably prefer a trimmed version of the other quotebox that I removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks MUCH better with the one brief short pithy quote in the quote box, nicely done! — Cirt (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • 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]
  • Tony changed Masem's heading from "Comments from Masem" to "Image review by Masem." I don't know whether Masem intended this to be the FAC's image review. If he did, the FACR require that non-free images "satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content" (NFCC).
The NFCC policy says (point 2.8): "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
That has not yet been argued for, and I can't see how this image satifies that requirement. Claiming fair use to allow a photograph of a naked woman to be added to her BLP seems wrong-headed, and the use of it appears sexist and gratuitous. If she wanted free naked images of herself to exist, she could create them. This is why non-free images of BLPs are almost never allowed. SarahSV (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (added link SarahSV (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
SlimVirgin, Please note that I created all of the sections. Masem never put a title on his section. I was trying to keep Cirt's comments together and created a section. As I have said before read the text related to the image. You keep talking about me sticking a naked photo in the article and refusing to discuss the content in the article about how that specific photo changed her life. If you read how the photo changed her life and then want to discuss it, that might make more sense. You seem to have had a fair number of FAs. You should know an image review when you see one. That is an image review, unless I am mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining about the heading. Whenever I mention the image, the point is missed. It is not about who has discussed it. It is not about that. It is this: I do not see how "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
You are saying that Robin Thicke liked the image and wanted her to appear in his video. Okay. But I don't know why we have to see the image itself in the article to be able to understand that. That is what you have to argue to the satisfaction of independent image reviewers.
It is a non-free, professional image of a living person, an image with monetary value, so your argument would have to be a very strong one. I would like to know whether there are other recent, professional, non-free images of a living person, images with monetary value, that have been allowed in BLPs. SarahSV (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, You are looking at this as a random photo. It is a photographic art at the highest levels. The subject is herself a stunningly beautiful subject and this artistic black-and-white photo is executed in a manner that stood out from the myriad of magazine cover subjects in a way that enticed certain powers to solicit Ratajkowski. In order to understand the artistic splendor, you must see it. If you look at that picture and do not understand the caliber of artistry, I can not help you. Several other people who either saw it or were writing in secondary sources about those who saw it have noted the significance of this single subject. The prose of the article and the WP:CAPTION of the photo spell this out. This is a picture that is worth a thousand words and more. It is rare that a persons career is propelled by a single image. If it is, that image could be a fair use subject that passes NFCC as this one does. You have to review the sourced article content to understand the importance of the photo although the image CAPTION should make it clear enough. After reading the current version of the article, an explanation of how she was selected to be in "Blurred Lines" is relevant and this picture is the explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what you're describing in that image. I see a c. 20-year-old naked woman who has been professionally positioned and lit, and who has had her hair and make-up done by professionals. The image caused her to be picked to be one of several models in an unpleasant video.
But if it's as artistically important as you say, all the more reason for Wikipedia not to assume the right to use it. (And if the artistry is the issue, it would be more appropriate in the photographer's BLP, not the model's.) Can you point to any other professional portrait of a living person, a photograph that still has monetary value, for which we claim fair use in that person's BLP? SarahSV (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I imagine hundreds of images at Category:Fair use magazine covers are professional portrait photographs of living person that still have monetary value. I have done articles that focus on a few of them such as Demi's Birthday Suit and More Demi Moore. However, neither of these changed Moore's career because she was already famous. Thus, neither of these rises to a level of importance to be claimed as Fair use in her biography. I don't know how many images we have that are THE IMAGE that is credited with making a person famous. If we had an image of Demi Moore that is the image that caused her to be famous, it should be in her article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'm not at all hard line when it comes to claiming fair use. But it seems obvious that the attraction of this image is that she's naked. That's a reason to avoid the image, not a reason to use it. We already have a free image of her, at roughly the same age. There is nothing about the naked image that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, or where "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Note: "of the article topic." SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I don't understand your point. Where in the article do we discuss her nakedness in the photo? The photo does not support any prose regarding nakedness that I see. Please point out where nakedness is relevant. The prose that I am talking about is that the image made her the chosen subject to become famous. If there is any content regarding the nakedness of the photo in the article please remove it (the prose not the photo). However, I do believe that the sole reason why you object to the photo is that she is naked. Can you point me to the policies in WP:NFCC regarding naked photos.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said anything about nakedness in the article, so I don't follow your point.

Again: the policy says that a non-free image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That naked image does not significantly increase my understanding of Emily Ratajkowski. Its omission would not be detrimental to my understanding of Emily Ratajkowski. We have a free image of her, so I already know what she looks like.

If you tell me that Robin Thicke invited her to be one of the models to feature in a video, after he liked a naked photograph of her, I can understand those words. I can look up the photograph in the source you provide, if I feel I need to see it.

You've written an article that is in large measure about the objectification of women. But Wikipedia should not be part of that objectification. We should describe it, not do it. SarahSV (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • SlimVirgin, this seems to be WP:POV arguing. Neither this article nor the song is about objectification of women. You have expressed that we should ignore the opposing view regarding the opposite side, which is reliably sourced by both a critic and an involved party. There are more sources, but this article is not the place for further sources. However, it is not a place where sources for the other side should be ignored as you suggest. If you would read the sources that you suggest we ignore, you would see that the song has much more content about liberating women than about objectifying them. If you would read the content that I have added to address Ratajkowski's brand of femism, you will see that she believes in a different kind of equality for women. She does not believe sex is either a service a woman provides to man or a thing that a man takes from a woman, but rather a mutually enjoyed experience. She does not believe that men should be able to censor women's expression of their sexuality (in music videos, photographs, art or what have you). You insist all nudity is objectification and that it can not be art or entertainment.
  • SlimVirgin, for a long time Jessica Alba had a Playboy cover image. This was deleted at FFD. One difference is that Ratajkowski is proud of that photo as the photo that propelled her career. She is not out there suing anyone about it. Another is that she is prominent in this week's Time promoting her belief that nudity does not equal trashy. Another difference is that in this case, the image is one in which the image made people notice Ratajkowski and select her for other work. We have reliably sourced text confirming this. The prose can not make the reader understand why seeing a specific image jump started Ratajkoowski's career by making people select her. The image is an artistically executed nude black-and-white. We can not teach the reader what was so special about the image without showing it to them. You repeatedly state, that nude imagery=objectification. Ratajkowski's entire point is that nudity can be empowering to the subject. The image is not presented to show nudity. The image is presented to demonstrate the work of art that propelled her career. Read yesterday's Time article showing that Ratajkowski does not believe nudity=trashy. Get with the times. It is 2016.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyTheTiger: That sentence at the start of this remark (first paragraph, starting with SlimVirgin, You) is a personal attack. Please strike or remove it. The rest can stay, you are making a fine argument (except possibly the line where you remind Sarah what year it is, that's not very useful, I somehow suspect she knows what year it is) that doesn't need to be diluted by calling people names. I'd appreciate it if you struck or removed that sentence. I've pointed out so many sentences in Emily Ratajkowski itself that you have removed or rephrased that I feel justified in hoping you will similarly remove or rephrase this one in what is merely this FAC discussion. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

  • I'm sorry, but I have to oppose, for several reasons, mainly WP:FACR 1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and 4 (unnecessary detail) ... [remainder of post moved below]. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has suggested that parts of my oppose aren't actionable. Because my earlier post has been broken up and may not be clear enough, I'm clarifying my oppose for the delegates.

  1. FACR 1(a): "well-written: its prose is ... of a professional standard":
    The writing is problematic. One example:
    "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood.[147] ... She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement ... Planned Parenthood has presented Ratajkowski as a spokesperson for its birth control support.[150] Ratajkowski, is outspoken on her interest in going beyond speaking out in favor of birth control and using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality."[151]
    This has become time-consuming and no progress is being made, so I'm going to stop commenting for now. It's worth making clear that my primary objection is to the writing, per 1(a). There are problems throughout with grammar, punctuation, repetition and flow. Even issues that have been pointed out have not been fixed. In addition, there is unnecessary quoting, unnecessary clutter, and a promotional tone, which includes placing the opinions of the subject in Wikipedia's voice.
  2. FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources":
    It relies in part on tabloid sources and low-quality gossip sites, which violates WP:BLPSOURCES.
  3. FACR 1(d): "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias:
    The article seems promotional rather than a disinterested account of her life and work. For example, the first sentence notes that she made her name after appearing in the "Blurred Lines" video "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries." She was the most prominent model in that video. The lead doesn't mention how controversial the lyrics and video were (especially the semi-nude version). Both were widely regarded as misogynist; the lyrics promoted violence against women. [12][13][14][15] The Guardian called the song "the most controversial of the decade"; the video "generated its own separate yet overlapping controversy." [16]

    To mention the number ones without mentioning the controversy is a violation of WP:LEAD and an example of the article's promotional flavour. If there were just a few examples of this, I would try to fix them, but the same tone runs throughout the whole article.

  4. FACR 3: Non-free images must satisfy WP:NFCC:
    The use of the nude image strikes me as gratuitous. I don't see how it "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic." I've lost track of how the "subject of commentary" criterion is applied, but this is a professional image with monetary value, not to mention an example of the kind of image we ought not to add to biographies of women. It's just an essay, but please see Writing about women: avoid presenting women as "objects of heterosexual male appreciation."
  5. FACR 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail":
    There's a lot of unnecessary detail and quoting. It would benefit from that material and the lower quality sources being removed, then a rewrite to introduce a more disinterested tone. It would be shorter but better.

SarahSV (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Amended SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) [17][reply]

Tony, my first post was split up by your replies, and you're welcome to continue doing that below. But I'd like the above not to have replies added inside it, so I'm moving those here. SarahSV (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Re: point 1, lack of progress]:

[Re: point 3, neutrality]:

I am not averse to contextualizing this issue. I will not have much time between now and Tuesday to do so. I will definitely look at this on Tuesday, but am welcome to the suggestions of other editors to augment this issue. I am about to get back out on the road for Uber. It is a holiday weekend and people need to get out on the road and home from work, etc. I'm off to hit the roads for most of the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "this issue," I assume you mean the mention of the song/video in the first sentence. But that was just one example of the neutrality problems. Another example: in discussing her involvement with Planned Parenthood, you write: "She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." The source is an interview with her, where she is the one who says: "I had a lot of people who were like, ‘Wow that’s so brave of you.'". But this is repeated in Wikipedia's voice (and "gotten" needs to be changed). I think the problem is that, as you said somewhere, you're a big fan of hers, and this shows in the writing all the way through the article. SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Re: point 4, non-free image]:

I don't think your contention here is WP:NPOV. We have rehashed this image in all sorts of forums. Have a look at the last FAC. This image is the work of art that propelled her career. Period. There would be no discussion of her being on the main page without this image. Read the text.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I notice that several people who normally rail against non-free images are strangely absent or compliant when it comes to naked women.)
WP:FACR says of images: "Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content ..."
The latter policy (WP:NFCC) says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
I don't see how using that image in this article fulfills that criterion, and I can't see any agreement, in the previous FACs, that it did. There were objections to the image in both FACs. The objection was left unresolved in the first FAC. In the second FAC, the "critical commentary" issue was addressed, but that's just part of the guideline WP:NON-FREE.
The NFCC requirement – "would significantly increase readers' understanding" – has not been discussed that I can see. SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The prior FAC had two different image reviewers (Masem and Elcobbola) come to an agreement that the image satisfies all NFCC requirements as two FAC vets (SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria) looked on. I am not qualified to debate this. However, unless they are wavering, what is the point of reraising this issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see where the second FAC reached an agreement about that image. I can see where they discussed whether there had been commentary. But even if they had reached an agreement, this is a new FAC and a new objection. That the image has been questioned or opposed in all three FACs should give you pause.
FACR requires FACs to meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (NFCC). NFCC says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That's the standard that has not been met, in my view, except in the empty sense that a naked image of any BLP subject might increase readers' understanding of them. SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of this article has passed an image review above. Neither of us is an image reviewer. You might want to poke the image reviewer above or request a second opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 hundreds thousands 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Tony, I haven't mentioned the MoS, except that the article violates LEAD by omitting the controversy, and LEAD is part of the MoS. My concern is that the writing needs to be improved throughout. The article has a kind of breathless PR tone to it. (I'm not suggesting that you're formally doing PR for her; I'm talking only about the writing.) But before the writing can be fixed, the low-quality sources should be removed. SarahSV (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ..."
  • WP:RS is a difficult issue in regards to subjects of modest notability. If we were dealing with a politician at a G7 conference, we could source content from the most esteemed types of sources. However, models appearing in a Fashion Week runway may garner minimal coverage from even moderately notable sources. Take a sentence like "For Fall/Winter 2016 fashions Ratajkowski again walked New York Fashion week for Marc Jacobs on February 18 and also made her Paris Fashion Week debut for Miu Miu on March 9, 2016." We could source that she appeared in the Paris Fashion Week with several reliable sources such as Elle or In Style. However, if we want to make it clear it was her Paris Fashion Week debut, I am having trouble finding a better source than Daily Mail. I would gladly upgrade sources as you suggest, but in terms of the claimed fact that she "made her Paris Fashion Week debut" I don't see options out there. I might concede that Daily Mail is a somewhat WP:QUESTIONABLE source, but is this fact a "contentious claim" requiring a better source? You need to examine fact/source pairs. For certain less contentious facts, lesser sources may be acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the fact that it was her first time at this show really important? I admit, I am not a fashion expert, but our Paris Fashion Week article says it's one of four, so there are at least three similar ones, and plenty of other shows, perhaps of slightly lesser cachet, but still deserving of our articles, six in Category:Fashion events in France alone. As a world-famous model, won't she eventually get to many, if not most, of them? Surely we won't individually note her first time at each? OK, I'll buy perhaps her first time at any runway fashion show might be worth a mention ... but at least according to the Irish Independent - not a gossip paper - that was at the New York Fashion Week, not Paris.[18] So is the fact the Paris appearance was her first there really such a big deal? --GRuban (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing before I head out for a day of driving. In regard to this, runway modelling and print modelling each has four majors (like golf or tennis) in the same four cities (London, Milan, Paris and New York). These are the Fashion weeks and the Vogue. The case could be made that a FA level article of a world class model presents details about the accomplishments in terms of these majors, IMO. However, we need the opinion of WP:FASHION regs in this regard. I don't know if anyone currently active in this discussion qualifies as knowledgeable about that profession.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are discussing wins, not appearances. Frankly, if the first appearance for a model at that particular major were a big deal, then presumably a fashion magazine or column would mention it. Instead it's being mentioned by a gossip mag. --GRuban (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The opposing view would be that she personally serves, encourages, abets, enables, and profits from the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women. Not saying whether I agree or disagree with that myself, but Slim's list of sources pretty much say that, though they focus more on Blurred Lines than on Ratajkowski, so ideally we'd find sources that focused on her. --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the topic at issue whether "Blurred Lines" promotes the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women or Ratajkowki's life embodies support of the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Specifically, we should present and summarize what reliable sources say, in proportion to what they say. Sarah gave four that focused on Blurred Lines, which is relevant considering how much of ER's article is directly or indirectly related to BL - it looks like maybe a third of the article. Here are a few more sources on ER specifically [19][20] but I can't guarantee they're the best, you really need to do a few searches on it yourself [21][22]. From my (very quick) searching, I see noticeably more sources supporting her as a sex-positive feminist than those attacking her as not a real feminist, but the other side does exist, so needs to at least be mentioned. Also, again, the criticism of BL is substantially more, and needs to be given. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I have the next 3 hours blocked out to try to address this issue a bit. I'm digging in now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Boss and Tonic is not a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony has added that the subject claims to be a feminist. If a woman says she's a feminist, I normally accept it (even if I disagree with her view of it), but there has to be a limit. The subject says of this video that it is "not sexist." Factor in the lyrics: "I'm gon' take a / Good girl / I know you want it ... / I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two / ... Nothin' like your last guy, he too square for you / He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that."
Jezebel's response to Robin Thicke's claim that the song is feminist: "Susan B. Anthony. Germaine Greer. bell hooks. Robin Thicke. We thank these brave warriors for all their hard work."
We don't allow BLP subjects to say whatever they want about themselves. If there are sources discussing a contentious and self-aggrandizing claim, include the sources and explain why the claim might be problematic. For example, if an arguably racist person claimed be an anti-racism campaigner, we wouldn't include that claim without comment. If there are no independent sources discussing a contentious claim, it's better to leave it out. SarahSV (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, I am not going to haphazardly jump in and add this text. I have not looked at how it is handled in the article for the song. I hope that there is content there that I can just sort of summarize here.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tony, my advice is that you take the article off your watchlist for a few weeks, then return to it with fresh eyes. I've been in a situation many times where I've been writing something intensely to the point that every factoid is precious. Not reading the article for a few weeks or months has usually helped (but it is always difficult for writers to see the article the way readers do).
Then remove the lower quality sources and the quotes, and try to rewrite the rest in a more disinterested tone. Add more about the controversy over Blurred Lines, including a mention in the lead. As I said above, if you do that, the article will be shorter, but it will be considerably better. And remove the nude image; it cheapens the page and it really isn't compatible with the policies. Remember that women are among your readers. Write the article so that they won't feel disappointed or excluded. SarahSV (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, are you looking at the current version of the article. I have dissected the controversy into a four-faceted issue in the LEAD. What do you mean when you say mention it in the LEAD? Regarding the image, you are not reading the text about the image and it does not make sense for you to talk about the image if you are ignoring the explication about it in the text. Let me know if you decide to read either the current version of the LEAD or the prose about the image in the text. I presume if you have not read the current version of the LEAD, you have not read all of my changes to the main body regarding the issue that seemed important to you and are giving advice without looking at the article. I also presume you are asking me to remove the article without regard to the image reviewers opinions for reasons that surely have nothing to do with any relevant policy because if you were concerned with the policy regarding the images you would address those who understand them (the image reviewer). I will adhere to the directive of the image reviewers with regard to image policy (as should you) unless you are in fact a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've added to the lead: "despite being controversial for many reasons including its nudity, plagiarism, and its themes of both sexual degradation and sexual freedom." Who other than the people involved in it said that its theme was sexual freedom? The lyrics promote violence against women. You've also added: "The song is criticized as being sexist in its degradation of women. However, the purpose of the video was to use exaggeration to humorously approach sexual degradation." However, etc, in Wikipedia's voice. The problem is that you have a strong opinion about this that isn't the view of the mainstream media.
But to repeat: my main FAC objection is the way the article is written and sourced. SarahSV (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I have presented both sides, but you are ignoring the other side by overlooking arguments like Jennifer Lai's and discounting Williams'. I have clarified this by adding that it is a matter of perspective. You should not ignore that there are perspectives other than your own.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Tony: I added an invisible question (which you removed) to "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood," asking what other women's health issues she has been involved in. Can you add something to the article or rewrite that sentence? SarahSV (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might not have time to respond to everything discussed since I was last online, but here I have a few minutes before my morning workout. I have added "safe sex and birth control" to the main body because of a specific PSA. I am not sure if that PSA rises to a reason to include this point in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what a PSA is, and I wasn't asking that you add something to the lead. The lead says she is involved in women's health issues other than for Planned Parenthood. So my question is: what other health issues? Safe sex and birth control are Planned Parenthood issues. SarahSV (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way a PSA is a Public Service Announcement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that we are not going to find much out about any involvement she may have had with PPA before she was a public person in 2013. We have a 2015 PSA and a statement that she has always been involved with PPA because of its role as a women's health organization. I can't find much about her charitable works prior to 2015. I could change "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood." to "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood." if you are more comfortable with that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or just "She has been a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood since [year]." SarahSV (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, The article has undergone quite an overhaul since we last spoke. Can we discuss your current stance on the article. I think all sourcing issues have been addressed. Many details have been removed. If I have not gotten your support, can I get you off of your oppose at least.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, responding to your ping, there are still problems with grammar, flow, too many trivial details, and poor sourcing. Also some odd phrases ("vanquish women at will"?) and some feel this and others assert that. Too much space given to her opinions. Too many quotes. It needs to be rewritten in a more disinterested tone, and it should summarize only the higher quality sources. SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from General Ization[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
General Ization, the article no longer resembles what it did when you responded two weeks ago. Can you comment on your current stance on the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from White Arabian Filly[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Comments from Nightscream[edit]

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)[reply]

Nightscream, the FA criteria are presented at WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comments from Figureskatingfan[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from Chaheel Riens[edit]

I'd have to duplicate Nightscream's comments - I'm not much up on Featured/Good articles, but am quite willing to dip toes in and edit to improve articles - and would fully support concentrating on this one for a while to get it up to the required standards. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chaheel Riens, I am a very experienced editor and in my experience I have found that my strength is researching and gathering content. My featured article successes are usually the result of copyediting assistance from other interested editors. I would appreciate it if you would lend a hand to cleaning up the article. I especially need fresh eyes to consider MOS:TENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth[edit]

Oppose - prose issues and the non-free usage of the magazine cover.

  • The prose is stilted. Examples, the second paragraph of the lead which has a number of sentences starting "She ..." plus more repetition "She appeared ... This led to her being asked to appear ... Among her other cover appearances ... Ratajkowski appeared ... She made ... She was a spokesperson..." This reads like a resume with too much repetition.
  • Third paragraph of the lead, the first sentence has three uses of "roles" in close order and two sentences starting "Her.."
  • Throughout the rest of the article - there is a severe overuse of the "She/Her to start sentences.
  • The last paragraph of "early life" is just off in tone for an encyclopedia - it reads more like something I'd read in a women's magazine.
  • "As of March 30, 2016, two videos in which she appeared for the company—a featured Holiday 2012 video and a local Valentine's 2011 video—are among the five most popular videos on the company's YouTube channel." this is encyclopedic?
    • As with your questions regarding American GQ, I think what we have here is some sort of misunderstanding on the relevance of the topic. Ratajkowski became a breakout star in 2013-14. We are trying to show the things that helped her separate herself from the multitude of models. In 2011, she was unknown. Being in a popular video is part of the process of becoming a star. If we have evidence in the public domain that we can point to that shows how she began to become popular, we need to present it. As with the American GQ content below, this is not a matter of eliminating content, but rather a matter of you communicating to me how to better help the reader understand that this was one of her first popular appearances.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of listings of way too many cover appearances, bit appearances in videos, etc. All this trivial detail makes the prose hard to read and makes it stilted and un-engaging.
      • This is a model. Magazine covers and videos are a large part of their craft. Your assessment of summarizing their craft as trivial is like saying that talking about how a bunch of basketball games are trivial in the biography of a basketball player, a bunch of elections are trivial in the biography of a politician or a bunch of horse races are trivial in an article about a horse. I think your interest level needs to be recalibrated for the subject at issue. Models have their picture taken. We are tasked with summarizing the important instances of them doing their craft based on what appears in RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • we are an encyclopedia, we summarize things when there is a lot of detail available. We don't list the stats from every game an NFL player plays, nor do we have to give exhaustive details on every cover appearance. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had been thinking about these edits, which I just undid. Models' success is based on their most notable work (like any other professions). Since there are no WP:FAs of people who are primarily notable for their modelling, it is hard to look at what counts and how to present it. Model cover appearances is one of the prominent things that they do. I had been tinkering with an alternate presentation at here. I am trying to get feedback at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#Coverographies, but WP:FASHION may be inactive. This is not like mushrooms where everyone knows what makes an FA because we have dozens of them. Unfortunately, I don't edit much outside the Tuesday-Thursday window now and don't have time to trim much other content right now. I will take a look then at trimming much more.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On June 24, 2014, Ratajkowski appeared topless on the cover and in a photograph spread in the July 2014 edition of American GQ.[87] She gave men dating advice in the online videos and cover story." This is just an example of the trivial coverage that's way too much detail.
    • Ealdgyth, As I try to improve the article, I need to make sure I am hearing your correctly. Keep in mind that the subject is a model and GQ may be the most important cover that she has appeared on to date. (BTW, I have created a coverography mockup) This is a WP biography and we need to present the turning points of her career. So I think we definitely need to mention her first semi-major cover and possibly most important cover to date. Thus, I am fairly certain wiping out this content is not appropriate. Thus, I need to understand the problem with the current presentation. Do you not want to know the subject of the coverstory or are you objecting to the topless mention. I am guessing you may think that discussing the coverstory is unnecessary. So I have deleted that sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I am looking at her coverography to date and guess that Cosmopolitan (Italy and US) and GQ (US and UK) are her most important covers. I am not sure which is most important.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
      • N.B. My understanding of modelling is that France, Italy, United States and United Kingdom covers are the most important. It seems to me that Vogue is the most important magazine cover. Other high level covers seem to include Elle, Glamour, and Marie Claire. The next level seems to include GQ, Vanity Fair, and Cosmopolitan. I am just speculating on all of this and WP:FASHION is semi-inactive. I am going to try to find a Fashion person who will comment on what is puffery and what is not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More puffery "Ratajkowski became the new face of Italian retailer Yamamay on August 15, 2014." - the company doesn't even rate an article - why do we describe it as "became the new face" - and what does that really mean in encylopedia terms?
    • Being the face of a company is a common form of publicity. I admit I had been pondering the Yamamay content for a few days. Thanks for prompting me to remove it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fair use of the magazine cover fails any sort of justification for me. I can understand that the cover got her the role in the music video without having to see the magazine cover. In my opinion, it fails our fair use policies.
    • At this point it would be a WP:BLP violation to remove her topless image if the objection is based upon nudity concerns because my act of censoring her article would offend the BLP subject who is currently prominent in the media for speaking out against censoring her nudity. So as to be true to the BLP subject, I will choose to offend other editors rather than the BLP subject. So far two image reviewers have confirmed that the image passes WP:NFCC and its removal would offend the BLP subject. I will not show any support for censoring her nudity by removing the image unless it violates NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did NOT say a THING about nudity or the like. I said I believe it fails our fair use policies. Your reply did not address any of that - it replied to something I did not say. Show me where I said anything about it being a topless or nude shot. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I did address your concern about NFCC. I stated that it has already passed NFCC in an image review by one editor in this FAC after passing an image review by two editors in the prior FAC. That specifically addresses your concern. Please reread my statement which is a statement that it has passed NFCC review and would be a BLP violation if removed. You stated a point that I responded to and gave a second reason for keeping it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not think it passes our image policies, however. That is my opinion. The oppose is mainly based off the prose problems (which are throughout the whole article, the points above are just examples) but I do not agree that the image passes our image policies. And the idea that it is a BLP policy to not include it is so far-fetched as to be not worth dealing with. I do not agree with that interpretation either - so consider this my statement of that also. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • You and I are both veterans at FAC. However, FAC has a specific policy that there are a limited set of people whose opinions matter regarding NFCC. I am not an image reviewer and (correct me if I am wrong, but) neither are you. Thus, neither of our opinions matter regarding whether an image meets NFCC. So we should probably just deal with the prose. I am not going to have time to dig into this today. I will get back to it by Tuesday.
              • Uh, there is no specific policy at FAC that only a limited number of people's opinions matter re. NFCC. Certainly there are reviewers more experienced in image policy than others, but the FAC criteria never mention specific groups of people. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Can you confirm what the current role of the image reviewer is now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So I'm clear, Tony, since we were talking about policy above, do i take it that when you say "current" you mean re. FAC in general rather than re. this particular nom at this point? In any case, I'd use the term "review" instead of "reviewer", since it's about process and more than one person can comment on images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ian Rose, Well if the image review/reviewer process is different in this review than it is in any other FAC make me aware of that too. I have never been involved in a FAC, where the review was not determined by a reviewer. Even SandyGeorgia deferred to reviewers in FAC2 for this subject. I have always been given the feeling that there was no debating with a reviewer and that the reviewer has authority. In fact, I have never been involved in a FAC nomination where any editor felt his voice mattered against that of an image reviewer. I could point back at several past FACs if you like. Thus, I am wondering if the reviewer no longer is in charge of the image reviews and if there is a new or newly understood (to me) policy of a reviewer voice just being e pluribus unim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Okay, hopefully we can tie this up now. There's been no change to how FAC operates re. image review. Certainly most noms only involve one image reviewer but there's nothing to stop anyone else commenting on images, and an experienced image reviewer's comments can be subject to discussion the same as any experienced reviewers' comments (I've done so myself as a nominator). Ultimately it's up to the FAC coords to judge consensus for promotion of an article, and that involves determining how much weight to give to each reviewers' comments when there's a difference of opinion. As I haven't gone through all comments in this nom, I'm not here (as yet) to weigh things up but only to correct any misconceptions about the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Ian Rose, so you are saying that there have been previous FAC nominations where an image reviewers opinion was disregarded or overruled?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Ian Rose, I am still trying to confirm that the rules are not suddenly changing. Can you confirm that there have been previous FAC nominations where an image reviewers opinion was disregarded or overruled?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Tony, this discussion has gone on long enough -- pls re-read my previous comment "There's been no change to how FAC operates". As for precedents, I don't need to trawl through previous nominations because every FAC, every support or oppose, is judged on its merits. Time to move on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to dig deeper - the article is filled with trivial details that aren't encyclopedic and make it seem like a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article. And the prose is so stuffed with details that it is difficult to read and very stilted. It needs a complete rewrite that does NOT take place at FAC.
Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • What makes Fashion Model Database a reliable source for a BLP?
  • What makes The World's Best Ever Blog a reliable source for a BLP? (Note at the bottom where it says "The World's Best Ever: Design, Fashion, Art, Music, Photography, Lifestyle, Entertainment 2016 | the worlds best ever. all rights reserved. powered by word press." WordPress is a blogging site.
  • What makes Coed a reliable source? I could NOT get to their "about us" page because they kept scrolling my browser with more "stories" that read like gossip rags.
    • here is their about page, which substantiates an editorial process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can believe they've got an editorial process, I just don't see any sign that process is interested in avoiding gossip in the interest of facts. In that way it's like the Daily Mail. It and the National Enquirer each have an editorial process as such, in the sense that they have editors. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have eliminated both uses of coed, but one was jointly sourced with Daily Mail. I have replaced this by joint sourcing with The Sun and Models.com.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Sun is hardly better, also a tabloid. Is that sentence (worked with Tony Kelly?) really so crucial to this biography? Surely she's worked with many photographers, and surely some better sources can be found for at least some of them if you just want to namedrop. Is Tony Kelly somehow the single most important glamour photographer in the world, or in her career? --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • To my knowledge, she has worked with 5 photographers who have articles on WP. So I guess he is one of the top 5 photographers she has worked with in her career. The Sun is the closest thing we have to the fact that she was the cover for that edition's anniversary. Models.com tells us she shot with Kelly. I will shorten the content further to get rid of The Sun.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Fashionista a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • Daily Mail is not a good source for a BLP - why should you use it rather than something more reliable?
    • I am going to need 48 hours to look at all of the uses of Daily Mail. In past FACs, for specific facts, less reliable sources have been accepted when they were the only alternative. I am not sure how many of the current uses are necessary and can not be replaced by other sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have trimmed Daily Mail use from about 10 to 1 ref. It seems to be the only source describing her role with Tony Duran, who is one of 5 photographers she has worked with who has a WP article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. The Irish Independent article does the same. (In fact, it seems to use almost the same words; if it were a Wikipedia article I would accuse it of plagiarism.)[23] --GRuban (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes MovieWeb a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • What makes deadline.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • What makes Paste.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • What makes Uproxx a high quality reliable source for a BLP? I again note that I cannot get to the "about us" section because it keeps scrolling more and more gossipy "news" stories at me.
  • What makes models.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2016 [35].

Kalki Koechlin[edit]

Nominator(s):Numerounovedant (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Koechlin is an Indian actress of French descent, working in Bollywood films. She is a theatre actress as well and has written, directed and acted in numerous plays. She although has been involved in commercially successful Bollywood films, is better known for her unconventional roles in films like Margarita with a Straw and That Girl in Yellow Boots, among others.

I nominated this article for GA status after having done extensive work on it and now am looking to further improve it and bring it to FA status. Numerounovedant (Talk) 13:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash[edit]

  • Fixed
I too wish they are, but WP:Potentially unreliable sources reads, "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used." ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on it, I followed the lead of Sonam Kapoor's aticle, now an FA, the table was made based on from this article. But, as you suggested will look to improve it.
Much better. But I think I seee a slight screwup with the alignment of the years. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to the Tallinn Film Festival Award it was indeed awarded in 2014 as the film premiered there in 2014. NumerounovedantTalk 12:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kailash29792:Have made most of the amends that were suggested! Thank you for your help. Let me know of what you think of the article, and any further suggestions! NumerounovedantTalk 16:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anymore major issues; minor prose and grammatical issues may remain, but I think I can solve them. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! NumerounovedantTalk 10:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: Hey Kailash, I am not sure if you need me do work on any specific areas in the article, but I'll be happy to respond to any more comments that you have. NumerounovedantTalk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Will look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to read it later today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay.
Lede
  • "She is known for playing roles that defy stereotypical portrayal of women in Indian cinema, " -seems every Indian actress is known for this now..
  • ". She then starred in two of top-grossing Bollywood films—the comedy-dramas Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara (2011) and Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (2013)—both roles earned her nominations at Filmfare. " awkward, try ."She then starred in the comedy-dramas Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara (2011) and Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (2013), top-grossing Bollywood productions which both earned her nominations at Filmfare."
  • Where is the Sir Mutha Venkata Subba Rao Hall ?
  • film-maker -remove hyphen
Fixed all.
Early life
  • " Pondicherry" -what state?
It is a Union territory.
  • Link Hebron School, Ooty as Hebron School in Ooty
  • " She lived with her elder brother in Bangalore. Unable to find work in the city, Koechlin decided to move to Mumbai. She then worked with Atul Kumar and Ajay Krishnan who were looking for actors for a theatre festival called Contacting the World, held in Liverpool. She " -rep of "she"
  • "Koechlin, after moving to Mumbai, auditioned " ="After moving to Mumbai, Koechlin auditioned"
Fixed all.
Debut
  • "In the film, Koechlin played the role of Leni, a young girl who turns who turns to prostitution after an MMS scandal; the character was based on Chandramukhi." you need to state who Chandramukhi is to non Indian audiences. Elaborate on what she is and split into another sentence and remove the semicolon.
    • "do not look the role" -what sort of English is that?
  • "Kashyap had initially rejected her, stating that she was "not an Indian" and "do not look the role". However, the production house auditioned her and sent Kashyap the audition tape for his feedback. After watching the tape, he called Koechlin and offered her the part." -superfluous waffle, why not just say "Kashyap had initially rejected her on the grounds that she was not Indian and didn't meet his visualization of the character, but changed his mind and offer her the role after seeing her audition tape".
  • "The following year, she acted in the black comedy, The Film Emotional Atyachar.[18]" -and? If you're going to mention it at least elaborate a bit, otherwise there's no point in mentioning it
  • The 2011 content is unnecessarily drawn out and repetitive in places. It should all go in one paragraph and reworded to avoid "release in 2011" etc
Fixed all.
2013-present and stage
  • "Koechlin appeared in Y-Films's mini web-series Man's world. " -when?
  • "Koechlin has opened her own theater company, 'Little Productions' and has plans to turn to a play director too." -when and what does "turn to a play director" mean, you mean she "has aspirations to became a stage director"?
Fixed all.
Personal life
  • "a good space" -did she say that or a "good place"?
  • I question the encycloipedic value of "Right now, I am in a good space. Last year was a little bit more of a struggle, as I didn't know where I was going. I wasn't sure where my relationship with Anurag was going. All of it was unclear. Now, we are pretty clear that we are not going to be together. We have already applied for divorce and will get it soon." and "[But] everyone has doubts, we're all human. Even as an actor, you have days when you haven't slept enough, you don't feel like you're good enough or pretty enough... But ultimately, it's all about attitude. You must live with a little abandon and not be self-conscious. You ought to stop staring at yourself in the mirror, and just smile a little!" -perhaps the latter quote reflects on her mentality and approach so fair enough but I would remove the earlier one and simply say filed for divorce.
  • "Koechlin participated in the Mumbai Marathon, a charitable event that aimed to spread awareness on education," -when?
Fixed all
Media
  • "Koechlin is described as a style icon by the Indian media and has been dubbed as the "queen of experimental fashion".[101][102][103][104] Raedita Tandan of Filmfare described " -rep of described
  • "Koechlin is also associated with Fashion brands including Grey Goose's Style du jour and Vogue among others.[102]

Koechlin is a celebrity endorser and has been associated with several brands and services, " this needs a restructuring as it seems like you're repeating what you just said at the end of the preceding paragraph. I would move the first into the last paragraph and say:

"Koechlin is a celebrity endorser and has been associated with several brands and services. She endorses Grey Goose's Style du jour, Vogue, Coca-Cola, Olay, Micromax, Titan and AOC International, and numerous others."

Fixed

Overall there's nothing disastrously wrong with the prose or article, but like many similar articles brough here the prose is rather bland and a tad monotonous to read with the usual played xx, badly at box office, critic praised format" and not quite as a sharp as it could be at times. In places it would be good to read more about her preperations for roles and background to productions to vary it a bit and give it more life. It's difficult to give it my support. I would like to see the article made more interesting if possible and varied a bit. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Thank you for all your comments! NumerounovedantTalk 21:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! I am going to restructure parts of the article and add relevant information to make it more interesting, in a day or two. NumerounovedantTalk 10:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per Dr. Blofeld's suggestions I have expanded the Career section, with details of her pre and post film activities. I have covered all her major roles and would be working on some more minor additions and a thematic arrangement of "Media Image" section, as done in Preity Zinta's article. The reviewers may take a look at the recent additions. Thank You! NumerounovedantTalk 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • "Oneindia.in" --> Oneindia
Done
  • Is Happy Ending worth mentioning in the lead? It failed on every count.
Removed
  • Mention Waiting, Love Affair and A Death In The Gunj in the prose.
Added a new section, "Upcoming Projects".
  • Remove A Death In the Gunj from the table, as its only in pre-production stage. Per WP:NFF.
Removed
  • De-italise "Bollywood Hungama", "Koimoi" and "Rediff.com".
Fixed
  • Neither ref 1 nor 2 supports the claim that she was born to French parents Joel Koechlin and Françoise Armandie, who came to India from France.
Shifted the suitable reference to the end of the sentence.
  • "Her parents are devotees of Sri Aurobindo." Source?
Same as previous.
  • Author of ref 77 is missing.
Done
I have checked every reference, the domain and URL alteration does not lead to any ads or redirects or dead ends, is the fix still required?
Yes. This edit might give you an idea of the know-how. Such redirects occur when there is a difference in the urls of the ref and the real link. You have to open that link and replace that with the existing one. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it! NumerounovedantTalk 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed NumerounovedantTalk 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 doesn't support the claim that My friend Pinto had a poor opening and was commercially unsuccessful.
Shifted reference
  • There are some instances where the source doesn't support the claim, two examples are mentioned above.
I believe I have taken care of these?
  • The prose should only stick to National Awards and Filmfare, not the non-notable in-house awards. Just like other Bollywood FA's.
Removed Stardust Award, but all Bollywood FA articles quote the Screen Awards in the prose.
Film awards are a joke in India, including IIFA and other ones. I'd strongly suggest you to remove them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I probably disregard even the Filmfares because they are no better, but without mentioning any awards it's really hard to highlight the significant roles of an actor, especially in cases like Koechlin's because she seldom gets nominated for awards despite garnering acclaim for most of her performances! That said I would be happy to remove IIFA's from the prpse, but if you look closely Screen Awards re doing a better job than any other award show lately, so I insist on keeping that. NumerounovedantTalk 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never wanted to remove every award, but the garbages who give awards whoever is present at that ceremony. Also, I agree with your reason, and you can restore the Screen awards. But, atleast remove one of those. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed NumerounovedantTalk 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your suggestions! NumerounovedantTalk 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "The five-minute video was released on YouTube and feature a poem" - featured?
Featured Koechlin reciting a poem?
  • "The video met with rave reviews from critics" - not sure if "rave" sounds informal to use here. I gather that it was positive, so maybe use something like that? Feel free to ignore
I just thought that "positive" doesn't quite cut it!
  • "The film is scheduled for it's box-office release on 29 April 2016" - its
Done
  • "an independent film about two grieving people who are waiting in the hospital" - in a hospital
Done
  • "As of March 2016, Koechlin has three upcoming projects, apart from Waiting which will be released in Indian cinemas in April" - how about As of March 2016, Koechlin has three upcoming projects, excluding from Waiting which will be released in Indian cinemas in April
Not sure if what is right "excluding from" or just "excluding".
  • "Razdan on casting Koechlin for the role said that" - bit choppy. How about On casting Koechlin for the role, Razadan said that
Done
  • " and continued "There's nothing like performing for a live audience. Ego-wise also, because you get this goose-bumps-and-applause thing.[75] It doesn't matter" - citation needs to be moved outside the quotes
Done
  • "On 13 November 2013 both Koechlin and Kashyap issued a joint statement saying they were separating" - I think "stating" sounds appropriate here
Done
  • "On 19 May 2015 morning Kashyap and Koechlin arrived" - On the morning of 19 May 2015 Kashyap and Koechlin arrived
Done
  • "participated in the P & G Shiksha campaign for educating kids living in rural parts of India" - informal, try "children"
Done
  • "Her monologue which talked about the daily wars women have to wage against patriarchy, had bits from her personal diary as well" - sounds a bit unencyclopedic, at first I thought this was part of a quote. Instead of "had bits", try something like had extracts and "which was talked" to which discussed the daily wars
Done
  • "Apart from that, Koechlin has walked the ramp at numerous occasions" - I can assume that some readers won't know what this means, does this mean she was part of a catwalk?
Yes technically but I don't want to give the impression of it being just business because most of the events were charitable, so what do you suggest?

I spotted some minor prose errors and sentences that would be better off rephrased, but other than that the article is looking pretty solid! JAGUAR  20:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments. Some really good catches in the prose! I have responded to all of your concerns. Thank you again! NumerounovedantTalk 04:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After going through the article again, I will now support this FAC. Well done on all the good work put into this! And once again I must apologise for my two week delay. It's never like me to delay so long but I've been busy in real life this week and my internet keeps dropping out. I'm confident this should pass. JAGUAR  22:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for saying that, I am glad you could take out time to for the review. All your suggestions are really appreciated. Thank you again! NumerounovedantTalk 03:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

Support — Haven't found anything wrong with the prose, but you could try to replace the Oneindia source with a more credible one. Other than that, nice work on the article, Numerounovedant.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Thank you Ssven2! I'll look for a replacement for the source! NumerounovedantTalk 11:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: I removed the reference because there is nothing that the other two references (HT and Koimoi) do not cover. NumerounovedantTalk 12:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I take it as a support? NumerounovedantTalk 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 03:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check and image review[edit]

Some comments are not related to sourcing or images.

  • Ref 2 -- I am not sure what is the purpose of this source; it neither supports that she is a screenwriter (just a specific work of hers) nor does it say that she's worked in "many stage plays".
Moved onto the prose at appropriate place.
  • Consider rephrasing the following text: "After finishing her studies Koechlin moved back to India, and lived with her elder brother in Bengaluru." Source 6's text: "after finishing her studies Koechlin moved back to India, and started living with her elder brother in Bengaluru."
I am having trouble here, do you want me to remove some part because otherwise it's just shuffling phrases?
Look at the similarity between the

article's text and source's text.

Done NumerounovedantTalk 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with ref 6.1 and 6.2.
  • Ref 4 is not properly formatted.
I removed the reference because it had no exclusive piece of information.
  • Ref 82 -- text: "you don't feel like you're good enough or pretty enough. But ultimately" → "you don't feel like you're good enough or pretty enough ... But ultimately".
Done
  • The Filmography section is inconsistent with citations -- some factual assertions have in-line citations to back them up -- but others do not.
I cite just the one guest appearance because it is absent in the text, and incase of Love Affair, there's no link to cross-check so I added the footnote.
  • Some inconsistencies are found throughout the references -- you usually link a publisher/work the first time it occurs, otherwise not e.g. The Hindu in ref 73 (just an example which means there are more of them).
I did not understand this point.
  • Images are all fine. Just for the sake of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, consider adding WP:ALT for images though it is not something I strongly recommend. ツ

FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. NumerounovedantTalk 03:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added
  • Thank you for taking up the spot-check! Have made all the changes or left comments! NumerounovedantTalk 09:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her marriage and divorce need to be mentioned in the lead.
Done NumerounovedantTalk 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Krimuk90[edit]

I'm sorry to say that the prose is nowhere close to meeting the FA requirements. Some instances of the poor prose (mind you, this is only in "Debut and further roles (2009–12)" sub-section; the rest of the article has similar such errors):

  • "Kashyap had initially rejected her on the grounds that she was not Indian and didn't meet his visualization of the character, but changed his mind and offer her the role after seeing her audition tape." Several grammatical errors.
  • "Komal Nahta of Koimoi thought of Koechlin's performance in the film as "average"" Grammar, again.
  • "Koechlin shared screen with Rajeev Khandelwal, Gulshan Devaiya.." What is shared screen? Should be shared screen space.
  • "Koechlin was type-cased into 'dark' roles like prostitutes, troubled teenagers, and misfits." What is type-cased?
  • "Koechlin made her debut as a screenwriter with Anurag Kashyap's thriller That Girl in Yellow Boots, which she co-wrote and starred in". If she made her screenwriting debut with the film, isn't it obvious that she co-wrote it?
  • "Sukanya Verma of Rediff Gabe the film three stars" What is Gabe?
  • "She described her character in the film as "cartoony innocent" and "wide-eyed head-in-the-cloud type"". No idea what either of the quotes mean.
  • "Box Office India criticised the production, but thought that Koechlin brought credibility to role and did it "justice"." None of the cited sources are Box Office India.
  • "Vassilis Vassilikos's novel Z (1967)," MoS error.
  • "..a role for which she was simultaneously reading the script, while preparing for her marriage". What does that mean? Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sit and nitpick on such errors for the rest of the article. I strongly suggest a thorough copy-edit from a native English speaker before this is brought back here. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90:Thank you for your comments! I am currently working on the article for prose improvements and adding additional information and that is mainly the reason of why you found these errors. Most of them were suggestions from other reviewers, the other were recent additions that I made and did not have time to cross-check. None the less all your concerns are justifiable, but I don't think a couple of typos and slight lack of brevity should lead to a strong opposition. I am currently working on the prose as I mentioned here earlier, and after I am done (in probably a day or two) I would be happy to address the problems then. Rest all your comments here have been taken care of. I won't push you to take another look, but I think your concerns could all be addressed and resolved rather easily as done here. NumerounovedantTalk 11:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I missed most of those Krimuk picked up on, largely because I was busy at the time, but some of those are certainly howlers for FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I am afraid none of them were a part of the article at the time you reviewed it. I am currently working on adding additional information, as per your suggestions. I have fixed most parts of the career section now, you may take a look. NumerounovedantTalk 12:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: @Dr. Blofeld: I am almost done with editing the career section which would give you a better idea of the article's status now. Have a look if you can but I am pretty sure all the observations made by Krimuk90 were in the middle of my copy-edit spree. None of the problems were there when Dr. Blofeld reviewed the article, so I did not understand his concerns. Thank you for your comments though! NumerounovedantTalk 08:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true. Some other issues that I see now are (again, this is not exhaustive) :

  • "ranked it at second in his list of the best movies of 2009". Grammar.
  • "Consequently when she was offered a comic role, she was really keen on doing it, because it was different to her previous work." Very colloquial writing style.
  • Boxofficeindia.co.in is not a reliable source, Boxofficeindia.com is. You cite the former but wikilink the latter in the text.
  • "Prior to the release of the film she talked about her "image makeover", calling it a fantastic experience. " Makes little sense.
  • "Koechlin described her time on the sets of the film as "fun", and developed a close friendship with Padukone, and the two were seen posing together for cameras at various promotional events for the film". Redundant trivia.
  • " Koechlin was appeared in a video entitled It's Your Fault, along with VJ Juhi Pandey. ". Grammar.
  • "The film is about her struggle with the normal activities in her life, and how she further discovers sexuality." Poorly written.
  • "Koechlin at numerous occasions acknowledged that the role was the most challenging in her film career, and she took six months off to prepare for it". Why is it necessary to mention "numerous occasions" and what did she take time off from?
  • "She met with Chib, and both her physiotherapist and speech therapist, spent considerable time with them, ". Grammar.
  • "gave Koechlin the most praise " => "highest praise"
  • The lead mentions a Screen Award for Margarita but there is no mention of this in the career section.
  • " The four-part series raised issues relating gender inequality, and premiered on YouTube". Grammar.
  • " It also featured actresses like Parineeti Chopra, Richa Chadda and Bhumi Pednekar". Poorly written.
  • "an independent film about two grieving people who are waiting in a hospital watching their relatives suffer in a coma". Another example of the writing style that needs tweaking.
  • None of the sources cited for the claim that her Printing Machine video received rave reviews are actually reviews.
  • "..apart from Waiting which will be released in Indian cinemas in April" Isn't this information already mentioned?
  • Razadan said that, "was impressed by her previous performances and knew she could carry off the part.". Not sure how this is notable enough.
  • "She attended an acting workshop that was conducted by the casting director, Atul Mongia and also learnt Anglo-Indian accent for her role". Grammar.
  • "Koechlin has been associated with theatre since the beginning of her acting career." If so, why is there a separate section for this?
  • Hardly enough information about her roles in the stage plays. For instance, nothing is written about her stage play Skeleton Woman other than this: "She won The Hindu's 2009 The MetroPlus Playwright Award along with Prashant Prakash for the play Skeleton Woman which they both co-wrote.", which makes little sense if we don't know what the play was about/what her role was in it.
  • "In her interview she said, "Theater is really an actor's playground", and continued "There's nothing like performing for a live audience. Ego-wise also, because you get this goose-bumps-and-applause thing. It doesn't matter what day you're having, good or bad, once you come to the rehearsal hall, you leave everything behind. When you're on stage, you're in the show." What interview are you referring to, and why is such a big quote relevant?
  • The infobox says that she married Kashyap in 2011, but the personal life section states 2013.
  • "On the morning of 19 May 2015 Kashyap and Koechlin arrived at the Mumbai family court together and filed for divorce". Why is the fact it was morning important?
  • "She had abstained from talking much about her personal life since". Grammar.
  • Post the separation Koechlin in an interview with Daily News and Analysis said, "[But] everyone has doubts, we're all human. Even as an actor, you have days when you haven't slept enough, you don't feel like you're good enough or pretty enough... But ultimately, it's all about attitude. You must live with a little abandon and not be self-conscious. You ought to stop staring at yourself in the mirror, and just smile a little!". No context about what she is talking about.
  • Why is P&G in italics?
  • "Koechlin was accompanied by Shonali Bose's cousin Malini Chib, a person with cerebral palsy, who was largely the inspiration behind her film Margarita with a Straw". Repeat info. We already know that from the career section.
  • "Koechlin has also presented numerous monologues revolving around pressing social matters at different events". Why "revolving around"?
  • Is "NGO H.E.A.L.. Humans of Bombay" with the two periods part of the organisation's name?
  • "She spoke at a conference on Child sexual abuse organised by actor Rahul Bose's NGO H.E.A.L.. Humans of Bombay, a Facebook Group, shared a post by Koechlin, in which she opened up about going through sexual abuse at the age of 9". This sentence makes little sense.
  • " Her monologue which discussed the daily wars women have to wage against patriarchy, had bits from her personal diary as well.". Huh?
  • "After playing string and independent characters ". String?
  • "she gained recognition for her versatility for playing unconventional role". Plagiarised from Priyanka Chopra's article and is an unsourced claim.
  • What makes The Quint a reliable source?
  • Isn't ScoopWhoop essentially a WP:BLOG?
  • "The Week stated that with her powerful performances, and by voicing her opinions she "has always stayed ahead of her contemporaries in the industry". Nothing new in the quote that hasn't already been said before.
  • " has been dubbed as the "queen of experimental fashion" Dubbed by whom?
  • "In 2014, Koechlin was among the judges of a model hunt, The Max Fashion Icon organised by Max Fashion and the Cosmopolitan Magazine." How is that notable?
  • Ref no. 25 needs to be formatted correctly. Publisher/work field missing. Same for ref. no 37.
  • Ref. no 43, 49, 53, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 79, 104, 109, 120, and 125 needs correction.
  • What makes The Commercial Appeal a reliable source?
  • What makes Scroll.in a reliable source?

To conclude, I still stand by the fact that the article needs a thorough copy-edit before it is brought here. I can do it myself at a later time, but in its current state the article does not meet the FA-criteria. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the work that you are putting in. NumerounovedantTalk 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: With the number of prose and source issues brought to light, it's clear this was not adequately prepared before bringing it to FAC. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 [36].

The Bourgeois Blues[edit]

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a protest song that has entered the folk tradition. It has been a GA for a while and is stable. The text is complete after doing a comprehensive search of two college libraries, google scholar, LexisNexis, JSTOR, and EBSCO. The sourcing is standardized and I don't see any MOS violations. I think this is ready for my first ever FA. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading through; article seems slight, but then again it's on a Lead Belly song, forgiveness granted. Prose v good so far, I was gripped by the lead, which accurately conveys the man's plight in the music industry of the time, although the point is laboured at times. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all reliable. I don't like the green quote box, it's both garishly ugly and lacking specific context, suggest removal. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the face it seems fine, but again slight. Interesting at times, but not really answering or properly delving into all questions raised. I think you can rob from the bio to give more sociological context, and especially how he was seen by (and saw) white northerners; and the visit to DC is surely better covered. The musicology piece came across as muddled; more work here and I'll rethink. Sorry for being so distracted and imprice this Sunday morning, but I do like the page. These are my edits. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think the article gives a full picture of where the scholarship about this song is today. Outside of the one public radio piece, I couldn't find anything in the popular press and most of the academic work on the song is part of a biography or an overview of blues. I was excited to find out that there was a fake book sheet about the song (Ledbetter & Lomax 2011) so that I could include something about the underlying music. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good, and see (ec)'d suggestions re soc context and his largely non black audience. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I can't find any suggestions that I ec'd out or otherwise lift. Can you please give me a diff? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant you need to fill out context, perhaps from the bio. The song wasn't the first of its kind, or written in a vacuum. We ec'd when i was adding that to my original post, is all. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP articles about songs typically use Template:Infobox song or Template:Infobox single. A spot check of 10 of the current 58 song FAs all use infoboxes. One was included in the GA reviewed version of "The Bourgeois Blues".[37] Why is this not included? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this song to traditionally recorded pop music is like comparing chalk and cheese. Unlike most post-1940 music articles, the water is too muddy for an infobox. The first recording of the song was for the Library of Congress who will not let you access it without written permission of the Leadbelly estate. (I tried last week and I have the contact info of the estate.) The next year, the song was recorded for commercial release, but the majority of the sources gloss over it at best. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ~2:20 1938 LoC/Smithsonian version was released by Smithsonian Folkways on Bourgeois Blues (Lead Belly Legacy Vol. 2) in 1997.[38][39] Also included on Lead Belly: The Smithsonian Folkways Collection in 2005. The FAs "Old Dan Tucker" (1843) and "On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away" (1897) use infoboxes. GAs, including "Cross Road Blues" (1937) and "Dust My Broom" (1937) have infoboxes. The 1939 commercial release is discussed by Scalera and it's not clear that the other sources only refer to the 1938 recording. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Policy does not make anyone use or not use an infobox; it is an editorial decision (2013 FoF). However, in the past I have use infoboxes when I felt that they were helpful, Toil, but not when I felt that they added nothing beyond the first sentence of the lead, Good Old Mountain Dew / Pittsburgh Town. The notes included with the 1997 album claim that the version included comes from a 1944 recording session with Asch. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am making the point about the infobox because it helps to identify the recordings. This is one of the problems with the article – it is sometimes not clear which version is being discussed. You noted above that "the majority of the sources gloss over it [1939 recording] at best." However, Lawson references the 1939 Musicraft version (p. 43 #33) and Scalera uses it. The Hal Leonard lyrics are for the 1939 version. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyons writes Bragg "reworked an old Leadbelly song" and there is no indication that it is a remix. Remixing "recombines audio pieces from a recording to create an altered version of the song" and is distinct from a separate recording which uses no previously recorded "audio pieces". Other remixes are not addressed (or referenced) in the body of the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of remix. Also why should the article cite what it chooses not to cover. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remix is defined "verb: mix (something) again. *Produce a different version (of a musical recording) by altering the balance of the separate tracks [or] noun *a different version of a musical recording produced is such a way" (Oxford American Dictionary). "Remix" is included twice in the lead, but is not discussed or referenced in the body of the article. Assertions in the article lead must be referenced at some point (see WP:LEAD). As noted, the reference for the Bragg song does not mention anything about a "remix" and the reference for the Pete Seeger and Hans Theessink versions (a search for the song title in AllMusic) does not mention it. Again from WP Remix: "Remixes should not be confused with edits, which usually involve shortening a final stereo master for marketing or broadcasting purposes. Another distinction should be made between a remix and a cover. A remix song recombines audio pieces from a recording to create an altered version of the song. A cover is a recording of a song that was previously recorded by someone else." —Ojorojo (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the coloqual sense, remix and rework are the same. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Remix" is a technical term that has a different meaning than the broader "rework". To use the two interchangeably in an encyclopedic article is simply wrong. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Lyrics" section discusses four verses (presumably 12-bar vocal sections). The Hal Leonard reference shows six (with a 1959 copyright date and a key of A). The 1938 LoC recording has five verses and are in a different order.[40] The 1939 Musicraft single has six and is close to the Hal Leonard ref, although it is in B♭.[41]. There is also a much longer version, with Leadbelly telling more of the story.[42] A discussion of the song's development would be of interest (and the switch from 6- to 12- string). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lawson (the main source for the "Lyrics" section) does not give a verse-by-verse description of the lyrics – he only touches on #2 and #6 of the 1939 version, which he doesn't number (the 1938 version has a different order). Likewise, Scalera does not number the two he includes (the LyricWikia link only includes 5 of the 6 verses). As noted above, the article discusses "the first [turned down] ... the second [landlord] ... the third [Home of the brave] ... the fourth [boycott] ...". These are not identified in the sources and the numbering doesn't match up with the Hal Leonard reference verses. Where do they come from? If from Leonard, why not mention the fourth verse? (more on this below). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scalera includes the 1939 single, but doesn't mention the lyrics in the fourth verse (1939) that begin "Me and my wife, we went all over town, Ev'rywhere we'd go the colored people would turn us down". The 1938 recording includes "Me and my sweet wife and Miss Barnickle(sp?)", who was presumably white. So the protest extends beyond the "racism of its white population", which Lead Belly expands in the long version: "no colored people would let me in because I was with a white man, and that's a bourgeois place because they're scared to let in colored people with white people". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are your ramblings here actionable. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ramblings? How about Assume good faith? Concerns with the scope and accuracy of the article are being pointed out, which is part of the review process. Problems such as these are indeed actionable. If Featured Articles "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria", then there should not be such obvious short comings in the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I am following the lead of the sources. (Mary Elizabeth Barnicle is already mentioned in the article) --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The note in the "Background" section is insufficient. The statements made in the first paragraph of the "Lyrics" section are not supported by the fourth verse (Leonard). Lead Belly is not just targeting "the racism of its white population" and "by referring to Caucasians as "bourgeois"" . To ignore his indictment of the "colored people" misses a important point in the song—Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Several issues are not addressed; lacks the comprehensiveness and attention to detail for a FA. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPS1992

  • The article could perhaps be expanded slightly in a few areas to give a little more background explanation. For example, as someone not very knowledgeable about the era, I would associate Jim Crow laws with the south (where LB came from) and might not expect such segregation to be as widespread and intense in D.C. - some more background detail on this would probably help.
  • The role of Lomax is a really interesting aspect of the whole situation. The reader is left wondering why, in a city rife with racism and riven by segregation -- all apparently government-supported -- there is this man with government funding who is inviting (and subsidising?) LB's visit to the capital to record his work for its importance to a government program. The Wikipedia article Alan Lomax has a lot more detail on this, including that the government's support for Lomax was removed only a few years later. A little more about Lomax's work could be added to the "Background and creation" section. And also very slightly more detail about Lomax's role should filter back into the lead; because at present, for the naive like myself, the first assumption on reading the lead is that Lomax was a music executive or producer, and DC just happened to be where musicians from Louisiana went to get their commercial music recordings done.
  • In the lead: "and the conditions of contemporary African Americans in the southern United States". I still feel that DC does not really count as being "southern", so this wording is confusing. The song is apparently almost entirely about events in DC, not in Louisiana which would unquestionably be "southern".
  • Ojorojo's mention above of "Ev'rywhere we'd go the colored people would turn us down" is significant, and it needs mentioning in "Background and creation" that the staff who were unwilling to serve the mixed-race group (but offered to serve LB if he came back without the white people) were themselves African American.
  • "several other incidents of segregation that are believed to have contributed to the impetus of the song" - is the part I have put in italics perhaps an overly weak claim, given that these incidents are directly referenced in the song?
  • It is possibly worth briefly mentioning somewhere that Lead Belly is not the artist's legal name?
  • I think you will have to compromise over using "remix".

I have made these largely trivial edits. MPS1992 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Not much progress is occurring on this nomination and there are substantive concerns best addressed outside of FAC. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2016 [43].

Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851[edit]

Nominator(s): Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first first-class cricket match played in Australia and therefore holds significant historical relevance in the world of sports, as Australia is one of the major cricket playing nations. While the article is one I authored and brought to GA status, I am still a fairly new editor here so apologise in advance if either this nomination is not in order or there are issues with the article. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:TF_Hamilton.png should include a US PD tag
  • Thanks again for the suggestion. What you suggest is already present and was done on 18 February 2016. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, my apologies for missing that. But the first part I think should still be implemented. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. While I have done what you have suggested, the only problem that I see is that the template {{non-free use rationale 2}} is not a general information template – it requires mentioning of a specific article for usage. The page that provides the guidelines for using these templates suggests that for the general information, one may use {{Non-free media data}} and for the multiple articles one may use {{Non-free media rationale}}. This is what I have done after your suggestions. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a chance that this picture was published before Page's 1957 A History of Tasmanian Cricket? Photos that were purportedly put in a box before being published a hundred years later for the first time give us gray hairs. There is a good chance this is PD. Does Page give any more specific image credit (@Sammyrice: pinging uploader). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned it from a library book some time ago. I'm afraid I don't remember any photo credits. But as he died 140 years ago, wouldn't it automatically be in the public domain?Sammyrice (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, death of the subject affects personality rights but not copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, reading this through now - interesting topic. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) and jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't get a sense of context - i.e. how soon was the second first class match played..why was there none before this and why (and when) was this made the first one. Was this the "official" Tasmanian team or was there another team in Hobart? You don't have to add much but a little context would help alot here.
  • Also, with the crowd - any mention on how much tickets cost? was this a bigger than expected turnout? Or smaller?
  • Some of the sentences are a bit on the abrupt side.
  • Rather than link "intercolonial" to the wiktionary adjective, you might wanna link that to Intercolonial cricket in Australia....(that article also mentions something about the match being related to Victoria becoming a colony, which I think would be relevant to this article)
  • The match could be buffed a bit - e.g. maybe add who were the openers who came in at first -more sequential...

It's a bit of a list, but either the facts are there or they aren't if not available, just note them. back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Casliber. I will work on these tomorrow and get them up to speed. ("Some of the sentences are a bit on the abrupt side"; if you could point out, I can work on them. Will any way review the article and see which are abrupt on the face of it). Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I phrased that wrongly - no sentence in and of itself is particularly short..but there are alot of short ones....if you could elide a few otherwise don't worry, just sort content out as there is a bit to add and we can massage it later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure will do that. I have put aside this weekend to work on this. I will ping you if I need assistance on any editorial issue. Thanks for the guidance. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, fascinating topic. Long time cricket fan, but I rarely edit such articles, so I can't say I'm really qualified to give much advice here, although I will try to offer something. These are my suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also like to see a larger lead section for a Featured Article - perhaps if you expand the context per Cas Liber's comments, it will give you more content to summarise;
  • I wonder about the title of this article, perhaps "Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land first-class cricket match, 1851" might be more intuitive?
  • "11 February 1851 – 12 February 1851" --> "11–12 February 1851"?
  • "over (cricket)" is overlinked (no pun intended);
  • "1850-51": should have an endash;
  • "11-12 Feb 1851": should have an endash;
  • I think you could get away with moving the images of the captains up the page a little, so that they are not impinging on the References section
  • I'm not sure about the formatting of your references. I know it is not a requirement to use a template like {{cite web}}, but the current formatting looks a bit strange to me. For instance, it is more normal to include the wikilink with the title, rather than the by line. Also, some of your citations begin with authors, and others don't, giving the impression of an inconsistent approach
  • There is a large focus on stating someone was the first to do something, and to be honest, I think this is a distraction from the actual narrative. E.g. "so so was the first opening batsman", I don't think this is really worth a mention. It was the first first-class match, so it kind of goes without saying. (My opinion only, please feel free to disagree);
  • "Melbourne Cricket Club chose the colours red, white and blue..." --> what colours did VDL wear?
  • perhaps explain what a "timeless cricket match" means?
  • in the Background section perhaps you could state whether the players were paid, or if they were amateurs? How were the teams selected? i.e what competition did they come from (local club cricket, or something else?), were they from all sections of society, or just from a small group, etc.
  • perhaps you could add an Aftermath type section that discusses when the two teams met again, and maybe when they changed their names to Victoria and Tasmania (as opposed to Port Phillip and Van Diemen's Land)? Did this match up develop into a significant rivalry between the two states?
  • did the players in the match go on to represent their colonies again, or was this the only match they played?
  • Hello AustralianRupert, Cas liber, I got a bit indisposed and wasn't able to come to Wikipedia at all the past few days. Now am better and will work on these on this weekend. Many tys for the points. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after almost two months. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2016 [44].

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship. It was recently elevated to GA status and I believe it's got the potential to be a Feature Article as well. I have put a lot of work into this article and the associated list (List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions, which is currently a Featured List). The article hits the level of quality, coverage, neutrality, sources etc. needed for it to be considered a Featured Article. I hope you agree.  MPJ-US  00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I see quite a lot of prose issues here, plus a few other issues
    • "This is not the case with CMLL, traditionally Mexican wrestling has used multiple weight divisions, often with the lower weight classes receiving more attention from the promoters, a tradition CMLL carries on." - long sentence with multiple clause, suggest rewording to "Traditionally, however, Mexican wrestling has used multiple weight divisions, often with the lower weight classes receiving more attention from the promoters. CMLL carries on this tradition."
      • Addressed
    • "By the early 1990s CMLL began to downplay the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship featuring less frequently on CMLL shows until they stopped promoting it at all." - doesn't make grammatical sense as it stands, suggest "By the early 1990s CMLL began to downplay the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship, which featured less frequently on CMLL shows until they stopped promoting it altogether." Also, does this downplaying pre-date the 1991 tournament? If so, you can't really say they began to downplay it in the early 90s, maybe say "By the start of the 1990s"......?
    • '@"CMLL held a 16-man Single-elimination tournament from October 30, 1992" - no reason for capital S on Single
      • Addressed
    • " to become the 8th over all champion" - overall is one word
      • Addressed
    • "In September 1997 Steel, signed a contract" - that comma should not be there
      • Addressed
    • "World Wrestling Federation (WWF later WWE)" => "World Wrestling Federation (WWF, later WWE)"
      • Addressed
    • "the second time in the history of championship" => "the second time in the history of the championship"
      • Addressed
    • "Instead of a holding a traditional tournament" - first "a" should not be there
    • "and have the new champion decided in a match between the three" - needs to be in the past tense
      • Addressed
    • "Universo 2000 would lose the title to and regain" - why not just "Universo 2000 lost the title to and regained"
      • Addressed
    • "title four times over all" - as above
      • Addressed
    • That whole paragraph has a lot of very short sentences in quick succession, can you combine any?
      • Addressed
    • "defend the title four times over all, defeating Lizmark Jr., Universo 2000 and Último Guerrero." - that only makes three opponents, presumably he defended against one twice? If so, clarify this.
      • Addressed, it was three times I checked on that.
    • "Towards the end of Dos Caras Jr. title reign" => "Towards the end of Dos Caras Jr.'s title reign"
      • Removed that sentence in general
    • "marking the first time the CMLL World title has been defended on a non-CMLL promoted show" => "marking the first time the CMLL World title was defended on a non-CMLL promoted show"
      • Addressed
    • "He's the 19th overall champion" => "He is the 19th overall champion"
      • Addressed
    • "Universo 2000 has held the title the most times, three." - seems a bit too conversational, maybe "Universo 2000 has held the title the most times, with three reigns."
      • Addressed
    • "their departures from the company was so sudden" - departures is plural, so "was" is the wrong word to use
      • Addressed
    • Under rules you switch between having a capital C on championship and not having a capital - pick one and be consistent
      • Addressed, I have tried to use lower case "c" unless it's the name of one of the championships. I believe that is the appropriate usage.
    • I don't understand how the text about the 1991 tournament relates to the bracket. The text says the first two rounds consisted of battle royals, but the bracket makes it look like regular matches took place, with Konnan defeating Brazo de Plata, Mascara Ano 2000 defeating Vampiro, etc.
      • You're right it should be a different type of brackets, I will look through the options to see if anything works better.
      • Well I found as good a solution as I could think of to this.
    • Also, note 2 doesn't make sense. It says "Pirata Morgan was originally scheduled to compete but did not show up. El Egipcio wrestled in his place despite having already lost a tournament match.", yet it shows Pirata winning and progressing to the next round?
      • Because I wrote the wrong name, it was a wrestler named Herodes that was replaced
  • That's it for now, if I spot anything else I will let you know...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for all the comments, it's really helping making it a much better article. MPJ-US  01:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: I just realized it's been five days since your commented, wanted to be sure you are aware that I replied. MPJ-US  02:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: - I was hoping you could take a moment to go over my updates at some point and let me know if they're sufficient.  MPJ-US  11:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humblest apologies, I kept meaning to check back in but forgot. Anyway, a few other points I've noticed.............
      • "which forced CMLL to vacate the championship for the second time in the history of the championship" => best to avoid using the word Championship twice so close together
        • Fixed
      • "Universo 2000 lost the title to and regain the title" => regained
        • Fixed
      • "Mr. Niebla was champion for 543 day" => days
        • Fixed
      • "the first time the CMLL World title was been defended" => was defended
        • fixed
      • "With a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" title" => titles
        • fixed
      • In the 1991 tournament section, there is a reference to El Egipico - is that the right spelling?
        • Made sure the spelling is consistent and correct.
      • In the same section, the sentence about starting "in the second" has no period at the end
        • Fied
      • The wrestler mentioned above is also spelt Egipico in the 1992 tournament section
        • Fixed
      • Refs 8, 9 and 16 all use the word "mejr". I can't speak Spanish but I am pretty sure this is not a valid Spanish word
        • Should have been "mejor", typo that was then replicated when I copied one reference template to use for the other references. Fixed now.
    • Cheers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No need to apologize, I know how it is, making plans and life happens. Thank you for your feedback, I believe I have addressed it all. MPJ-US  22:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ɱ[edit]

I probably won't comment on prose until the above is addressed, so any work isn't redundant. The references look good, although perhaps consider editing the order each parameter occurs, for consistency? And when you line everything up, you often find things that are missing or inconsistent. For example, some dates are written solely using numbers, while others include the month written out. The MOS recommends using one format. And I recommend adding wikilinks to the publishers and locations if available (Not sure if this is officially recommended, though I find it useful). Also, reference 21 isn't working for me.

  • I fixed the date formats, I will check on the reference and link publishers that have articles.  MPJ-US  01:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 21 is the NJPW link as far as I can tell and clicking the link works for me?? MPJ-US  01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The images mostly seem fine, though File:NormanSmiley2007.png should have a PD license like the original upload. As well, File:KonnanJuly2011.png has the wrong license, it's licensed on Flickr as CC-BY 2.0, not CC-BY-SA 1.0. File:ValVenis chalkphoto.jpg should link to Flickr's image description page, not the all sizes page.

  • Fixed the Konnan pic, I am not sure what to do about the other two, not that familiar with image work unfortunately.  MPJ-US  01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to bookmark the page, like a rookie, so I did not see these comments until right now. I will get to work addressing everything mentioned right now. Sorry for the delay and than you Ɱ for pointing this out.  MPJ-US  00:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I fixed the other two photo descriptions. Also, I tried citation 21 today and it was working for me... ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on prose now, I made a few changes, but I'll have questions and more changes. For starters, "the 15th overall person to hold the championship and the 18th overall champion." doesn't make sense to me - what differentiates a champion from someone 'holding the championship? Is the word "overall" actually necessary here? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what I am trying to say is that 15 different people have held the championship for a total of 1918 reigns, since some have held them on multiple occasions. Keyword is "trying", sounds ike that does not come across correctly. MPJ-US  02:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is Maximo the 18th or 19th champion? You state it differently in the lead vs. the 'Reigns' section. Also, why aren't Maximo's CMLL tournaments in the 'Tournaments' section? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that he is the 18th, 19th must have been a typo. Not sure what you mean "Maximo's tournaments"? He defeated El Terrible to win the championship, not a tournament. MPJ-US  02:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ɱ: - I was hoping you could give my updates and comments a onceover and let me know where we stand? MPJ-US  11:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will for sure this weekend! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on prose, images, references, etc. I have no further comments. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: After more than two months, consensus to promote has not developed. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2016 [45].

I'm Not Your Hero[edit]

Nominator(s): 和DITOREtails 02:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm Not Your Hero" is a song by Tegan and Sara off there critically-acclaimed Heartthrob. It did moderately on the Canadian and French charts. Writers who have reviewed the article have noticed its significant amount of effort that I put into this. I feel every bit of information necessary to this topic is included, and the writing is also great. Any comments are welcomed. 和DITOREtails 02:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tbhotch.
  • Infobox
•In Recorded, I think the year and studios should be separated by a semicolon.*
•Warner Bros. Records -> Warner Bros.
*I was referring to this: [[Warner Bros. Records|Warner Bros.]]. Sorry for not being more explicit. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(*) Optional
  • Lead
•"indie rock/indie pop duo" -> MOS:SLASH
•The lyrics for the three-minute and 51-second -> Probably falls into Numbers.
•It peaked at number -> "I'm Not Your Hero" peaked at number
•their "Let's Make Things Physical" tour -> Tours are not quoted
  • "Song"
•"Song" -> "Writing and composition"; the whole article is about a song.
•"it was revealed" -> [by whom?]
•"Tegan and Sara Quin" is wikilinked after a previous usage of Tegan and Sara.
•"...I found the verses to be quintessential Sara." -> Needs a source here per BLP.
•"lasts for three minutes and 51 seconds." -> Same as lead.
•Back in my day Musicnotes.com was not a reliable source. I don't know if it still being unreliable and if it should be removed. Note I am referring to the website itself and not to the music sheet provided by the website.
  • I see you removed the whole text and source. Unfortunately, I wasn't referring to this. It was simply to remove the url. But, I have checked other FAs including "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", "4 Minutes" and "Rehab (Rihanna song)". They all include the website, but at the same time they include the following line "According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by [Publisher]". Also, I found this that didn't exist before: WP:USM. So, you can re-add it, but with the given format. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•"...found the non-traditional rhythms 'strangely reminiscent' of 'Sweet Disposition'..." is similarly written as ARL's.
  • Quoted
  • Release and reception
•"Their seventh studio album, Heartthrob, came out on January 29, 2013, and "I'm Not Your Hero" was released on October 21, 2012 as a promotional single for worldwide streaming." -> Chronological order needed.
•""I'm Your Not Hero" entered the French SNEP singles..." -> They're Canadian, why not enlist Canada first?
  • I understand what your saying, but this is because France is where the song charted first. It charted in France in 2012, and didn't start charting in Canada until 2014. Also, since you have said that chronological order is needed per above, I have just clarified this information in the article, but I'll still accept your argument if you still disagree. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•"a total of eleven weeks" -> Consistency.
  • I just checked the group's page from Billboard.com showing their chart performances on the Canadian Hot 100, and oddly enough, the source now saids the song chart3e for only one week when it peaked at number 58, even though it had debuted on the chart of number 82 five weeks before without leaving once during those five weeks. This must have been an error of the source I initially used. I have replaced this source with a much more accurate Billboard.biz search showing the song lasted 13 weeks. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*OK, but I was referring to the eleven (now thirteen) spelled out. Also, the external link is now wrongly written. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a technical issue. The only solution is to include this website alone: [46]. Later include a "|id=" guiding the reader the instructions they must follow to arrive to the information. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
•teganandsara.com. -> Tegan and Sara Official Website.
•Warner Bros. (Ref. 4) -> They refer to as "The Live Room powered by Warner Music"; also a "Official YouTube Channel" could be added.
•If Musicnotes.com link is kept, the message "Oops! The item you have requested, catalog # MN0125416, is currently unavailable." appears.
•MTV Buzzworthy. -> I think it is unitaliziced.
•Paste's archive website is not working as desired.
•"Tegan and Sara Official YouTube Channel." -> If you add a link for YT before, don't forget to remove this one.
•iTunes Store (GB). -> iTunes Store (GB) or iTunes Store (Great Britain).
•"Billboard. Prometheus Global Media" (Ref. 18) -> "Billboard. Prometheus Global Media"
•Ref. 19 displays an error message.
•MTV Hive. -> Same as Buzzworthy.
•Alter The Press! -> In the main text it appears as "Alter The Press!"; it should be consistent.
  • External sites
•"Tegan and Sara official site" -> I don't see how it is relevant here.
  • Media (Images, etc.)
•File:Tegan-and-Sara-I'm-Not-Your-Hero.jpg -> IMO, the file is PD. Warner Bros. logo was found to be PD, according to [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warner Channel.svg Commons]. While I do not agree with that result, the logo here is similar to that of WB TV. If the cover is to be kept here as NFC, it has to be reduced to 300px x 300px. Otherwise, you can bring this to WP:NFCR to determinate its status.
I forgot this, it also needs an online link. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 00:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•File:SaraQuin.JPG seems OK. Not necessarily but, a {{Personality Rights}} (Commons only) can be added to the picture.
•Optional as well, but a sample of the song can be added as well, considering it can have value to the article.
  • Other
•SaraQuin.JPG is missing an ALT description.

These are all the issues I could find. Good work. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Famous Hobo

I'll take a look at this, in exchange for a peer review of "Help Is on the Way"

Lead

  • "I'm Not Your Hero" is a song by Canadian indie rock and indie pop duo Tegan and Sara. This is more of a personal preference, but is it possible to list just one genre? While artists can obviously vary in their musical style, they usually stay within one overarching genre, like rock or pop. From a quick listen to the actual song, it sounds more pop than rock. Besides, their About page says they bridge the pop and indie worlds. You can keep the sentence as is however, if you perfer.
  • Reviews were mostly positive upon release, with critics praising the songwriting and composition that is comparable to the works of Santigold, Fleetwood Mac and The Temper Trap. The second half of the sentence is worded awkwardly, try "with critics praising the songwriting, and comparing composition to that of Santigold, Fleetwood Mac and The Temper Trap." Also, you need to link all three artists/bands.

Production and composition

  • In November 2011, it was revealed on Tegan and Sara's official website that they were writing new material for their seventh studio album, with Tegan saying that "[we] are back in our home studios working away at more songs. Write Tegan's last name, Tegan Quinn.
  • The album was titled Heartthrob and recorded between February and May 2012. "I'm Not Your Hero" was written and performed by Tegan and Sara Quin. While it seems obvious, you should mention that "I'm Not Your Hero" was written for Heartthrob, because as it stands now, it talks about the album and the song as if they're unrelated.
  • ...while The A.V. Club's Annie Zaleski noted it to be in the style of British-American rock band Fleetwood Mac. Italicize The A.V. Club

Release and reception

  • The song is from their seventh studio album, Heartthrob, which came out on January 29, 2013. This information is already mentioned in the opening paragraph of Production and composition.
  • A Punknews.org staff member wrote the song "blows out its chorus rather impressively from the verses with some neat, alternated instrumentation." Why not just simply say "Bryne Yancey of Punknews.org..."
  • "I'm Not Your Hero"'s first chart appearance was at number 157 on the French SNEP singles chart, upon the release of Heartthrob. It didn't reach 157 until almost a month after the album release, so don't say upon the release. Simply say when it reached the position, like you do with the Canadian charts.

Live performances

  • This section feels very listy. Almost every mention of a new performance says "They performed" or "they have performed". You might want to reword the section.

Personnel and credits

  • Nothing to report on here

Charts

References

  • Refs 12 and 31 are dead, though there appears to be archived versions (I can't confirm, archive.org has been acting up lately on my laptop).
  • In Ref 16, the reviewer doesn't specifically say that "I'm Not Your Hero" has refreshingly insightful lyrics, just that the album does, with the next sentence starting with I'm Not Your Hero.
  • Ref 17 is missing the last name
    • There's just one problem with that. The link didn't list a "Last name", it just credits the writer as "Bryne". edtiorEهեইдအ😎 06:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 21 through 26 need {{subscription required}}
  • To keep in line with the other refs, Ref 28 needs an archiveurl

External links

That's all I could see, fix the issues and you've got yourself a support. Nice article all around. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks like everything has been taken care of (or at least what I could see. If there is still some things you still have to do, then disregard this message until it's completed). I made a small edit to the article, adding in the last name to the Punknews.org ref. Anyway, I can now give this a Support. Also, I'm not sure if this counts as a source review, but I went through all the refs (except for ref 3), and they're all faithful to the source. BTW, just gonna remind you of the little offer I threw out. Sorry to keep pressing, don't feel that your obligated to do it . Famous Hobo (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The prose is not up to FA standard. There are fused participles "with critics praising", "with Tegan saying", redundancy, "where it is listed as the fourth track" and clunky prose throughout. It needs a radical copy-edit. Graham Beards (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I suggest the nominator reads this. Graham Beards (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: After more than two months, consensus to promote has not developed. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2016&oldid=717837760"