Talk:Celebrity Number Six

Latest comment: 27 days ago by TompaDompa in topic GA Review

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Source: Kircher 2024, Matossian 2024
Created by Theleekycauldron (talk) and Tamzin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 73 past nominations.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Can you point out where in the article the hook's information is present? I can find sources for the start and end dates, but don't see any definitive statement she was unaware of it the whole time. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

To answer the question, it is permissible for a hook to be based on facts mentioned in separate parts of the article, the only important thing is that they're all cited with footnotes at the relevant sentences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mrfoogles: Fixed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Thanks, everything seems to be resolved except I'll leave it for a second reviewer to double-check the copyright checking. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Actually, approving it: that mostly takes a very long time and I’m reasonably confident the article is not a copyright violation. Mrfoogles (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Legality

edit

One thing that remains unclear to me is how the photo ended up on the curtain. Some pictures adapted on the same fabric apparently came from Getty, which indicates they might have been licensed (though most likely still in violation of the terms).

Is (or was) this type of (likely) unauthorized adaptation of professionally taken photos or images of celebrities in consumer goods common in Europe? Such a product seems unthinkable in (say) the US, yet Anttila appears to have been a legitimate large business. Are moral rights and personality rights simply not respected/enforced/litigated in Europe (at least when it comes to products like this)? Nardog (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As noted in the article, Escorsell says he did not license the use. It's possible he's wrong (sublicense, faulty memory, etc.), which is why the statement is attributed in-text, but if he's right, that wouldn't really surprise me. IP violations on textiles are pretty common, or at least that's my impression. And if this were litigated it's not clear who the liability would have fallen on—conceivably just a single subcontractor of Latky Mraz. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have little doubt that the use wasn't authorized, but what surprises me is that it was sold by a retail chain in Finland. I'd love some more context around this (if there are RSes). Nardog (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nardog: I didn't come across anything like that, probably because accusing a big retailer of committing copyright infringement is probably not something you want to do based on someone's recollection. But I think it's inferable from the article that the print was probably unauthorized. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, there's no doubt some rights (if not the photographers' copyright then definitely the subjects' personality rights) were violated in the production and selling of the fabric; I'm just wondering how prevalent that is in mass-produced consumer goods in Europe. Nardog (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recent tagging and AFD

edit

@Qwirkle, you've removed my comment on your talk page and suggested I go here, so here I am. What makes you want to delete this article? mwwv converseedits 23:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you could explain why you want to keep it. I see it as ephemeral pop-culture, which is only important when it has some sustained presence. This does not yet, and I would guess will not, but it is entirely possible that some hand...or flipper, more likely... will write of this a few hundred years from now as the sort of idiocy that humanity thought was significant right before they roasted themselves. The fact that it is so excruciatingly badly wtitten is just gravy. Qwirkle (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Qwirkle: Well, I can't answer for humanity's priorities, nor for reliable sources' choices in what to write about, nor for the community's choice of what to consider notable. As to the part I can answer for, if there are prose issues you'd like to raise, I'm happy to address them. Or you could, of course, fix them yourself. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, from my viewpoint, the only suggestion you have is for me to put lipstick on your pig. Seriously, now: if someone honestly considers an article not worth having, what point is there in prettifying it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talkcontribs) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
More that this is an article talkpage, and is supposed to be used for improving the article, not for levying vague insults. Are you just here to come up with different ways to say "your shit sucks", or would you like to help build an encyclopedia? If the former, feel free to not reply. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which is conceivably, and probably accurately, why user:mwwv pinged me here, I suppose. What you have done, however, is suggest to someone who thinks a topic doesn't really belong in a general encyclopedia at all, should work to improve the article. That's just silly. Qwirkle (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. You've said the article is excruciatingly badly written. That is not something anyone's ever said before about something I wrote, on-wiki or off-. So I take that charge very seriously, and want to know what to fix. But since you can't actually explain what parts you think are badly written, I'll just chalk it up as a lazy generic insult and move on with my life. See you around the wiki, hopefully when you're in a better mood. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, dear. Complete with the mandatory declaration-of-victory-flounce. Again.

If someone - anyone - doesn't see an article as needed, they have no reason to work on it. They have no reason, even, to have someone else work on it. It really is that simple. Qwirkle (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your latter point is just completely false. From what I've seen (usually in draftspace), whenever someone (an AfC reviewer in the case of draftspace) says something shouldn't get an article, the creator of it and/or someone else will probably try to improve said article. mwwv converseedits 12:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You appear to have completely misread what I wrote. if someone (rightly or wrongly) sees an article as useless, why must they themselves feel a need to improve it?

Sure, the original author might feel a compulsion. A passerby? Maybe.

That said, I'm dropping this off my watchlist for now. Qwirkle (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Tamzin (talk · contribs) & theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 06:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

General comments

edit

Lead

edit
  • reviewing every photo on Getty Images taken by the photographers of the other seven images – not quite accurate without some kind of temporal qualifier.
  • Commentators discussed how AI [...] posed the risk of similar mysteries becoming unsolvable in the future due to increasingly plausible deepfakes. – this does not seem like it's saying the same thing the body is.

Origins and unsuccessful efforts to identify

edit

Identification as Leticia Sardá

edit

Sardá's reaction

edit

Legacy

edit

Summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    See above.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    See above.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but see above about WP:Close paraphrasing and an instance of overusing direct quotes. These concerns have since been satisfactorily addressed.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    No obvious omissions.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    No obvious neutrality issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    There has been substantial editing recently, so I'll wait a few days to make sure it subsides before closing this.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Almost there. And now it is.


Ping Tamzin. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TompaDompa: thanks for the review! I think we've responded to everything :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TompaDompa: I think that's now everything outstanding dealt with. Thanks for a great review! :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
So it is, and having taken a slightly closer look at the edit history I'm also confident that it meets the stability criterion. The article passes. Good job! TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silhouette?

edit

Hi Tamzin and leeky, interesting read about citizen detectives, thanks.

I don't understand why some discussions called the print on the fabric a "silhouette". The original colour photo has been treated by one or more processes to be monochromatic before or during printing on the fabric, but it isn't a silhouette.

Also, in this sentence "The print consisted of eight black and blue monochrome silhouettes repeating", perhaps change "and" to 'or'? Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Took a stab at fixing it! Will confer more with Tamzin tomorrow, might end up tweaking it again. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks leeky, much better! JennyOz (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply