Talk:Janice Min

Article is overly promotional

I'm concerned that this page seems to focus almost (or entirely) exclusively on accolades/awards/praise of Min. It seems unbalanced. I trimmed quite a bit of promotional content, but this article needs more work to bring it into compliance with WP:BALASPS. For example, there's the criticism of her bemoaning post-partum weight loss standards while focusing on post-baby weight loss in her publications [1] and there's "Min's success thrills people like her boss, Jann Wenner, the chairman of Wenner Media. But it's not universally trumpeted..." etc. [2]. Right now this article is looking more like a resume/awards sheet and less like an encyclopedia article. Any help in fixing it up is welcome. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This may have been a valid concern at the time, but it appears this comment refers to a deleted version of the article that was since wholly recreated with entirely different content, see DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft

As @Smartse: had the unfortunate experience of encountering, this article has been subjected to poor, conflicted, paid editing. The career section is filled mostly with trivial awards. The article omits significant details about a controversy about her book and it doesn't mention her $2 million pay at US Weekly, which is widely reported in numerous, credible, mainstream newspapers. This behavior is especially unfortunate for this page, since an NPOV article that is representative of reliable sources is still quite positive and depicts her as an effective (read amazing) turnaround artist for struggling publications during a period of general decline in publishing.

To the point, to address all this, I've prepared a draft at Talk:Janice_Min/draft that has one more paragraph in the early life section and a re-written career section. Was hoping someone would have some time to consider my work. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey you're alive ;)

It's certainly an improvement overall, but here are some points to address:

• Any reason to remove "was considered a poor writer." - the source seems fairly clear on this.

The current article says "she was considered a poor writer", whereas what the source actually says is "one editor" at People said she was a poor writer. I figured it made more sense to just say she "struggled" than to include an anonymous comment from a coworker like "One editor at People said she was a poor writer". Up to you though - just explaining why I didn't include it in the draft. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this was only the view of one editor - they are saying that she was considered a poor writer by everyone, rather than just giving their opinion (or at least that's how I read it). The current "struggled" is a bit unclear - struggled with what? Maybe "struggled with her writing"? SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I added "According to one of her former coworkers, she was a "poor writer"" to the draft. The text of the source is: "At first, she struggled. "Her stories read like bad wire copy," says one editor. "When you're considered a poor writer at People, you're kind of palmed off from one section to another and not given much to do. Janice would sit in her office, crying."" Please feel free to edit boldly if you'd prefer it another way. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2002 Min applied for the editor-in-chief position at Us Weekly"

The source says 2001 (as does the current article)

This source, which is what is cited in the current article, says she left her prior position in 2001, but her predecessor at US Weekly, Bonnie Fuller, was still there in 2002: "The magazine's transformation began, of course, in 2002 under the leadership of Bonnie Fuller". This New York Times piece from 2004 says "who joined Us Weekly two years ago" per WP:CALC two years ago was 2002. I don't actually see 2001 anywhere (I may have missed it if it was) David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. The part in the adweek source says "But by 2001, Min left and began yet another job search." but evidently there was some time in between leaving and starting. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• The bit about the "baby bump" craze could do with fleshing out or reorganising a little - I had to read the sources to understand. Does it need turning round - i.e. mention what she did as an editor and then mention the column?

 Done That might be better. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep looking good. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Similarly explain what Jon & Kate Plus 8 is.

 Done

Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some tenses are a bit off e.g. "Min depicts celebrities" should be "Min depicted celebrities"

I think this info is still current actually. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I get your point, but it is under the US weekly header which is otherwise in the past which is why it sticks out. The other one is "too friendly to the celebrities it covers" - shouldn't 'covers' be 'covered'? This one's just a typo: "as oppose to" should be "as opposed to". SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Personally I prefer current/ongoing tense; presumably the magazine still covers at least some of the same celebrities, etc., but I went ahead and changed it. Grammar debates being not really worthwhile for anyone David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Any reason to remove content from the 'personal life' section?

Personally, I thought it was a little silly to mention who her neighbor is and thought it was trivia. For her husband, she said her husband was involved in a lot of other stuff now, but because he is not a notable public figure, we wouldn't find any updated sources with his current occupation. My advice was that her personal life is of so little interest to an encyclopedia that the best thing to do would be to trim it. As before, some of these are judgment calls where editors could reasonably degree and I trust your call. Another alternative would be to add an "as of" to it. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. After looking at the current sources I realise they are pretty gossipy. I was surprised there's no source for when they got married though.

• I'll need to read a few of the sources to be able to get an idea of how representative the draft is overall. Ping me if I don't get back to you. SmartSE (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Smartse:! I have responded inset above. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I'll respond properly in the next few days. Meanwhile do @Safehaven86: or @Guat6: have any comments? SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the draft is looking pretty good. I don't have any specific feedback at this time, other than where it says "Min had negotiated a contract where her compensation was partially tied to the number of papers sold," I think it should say "magazines" rather than "papers." Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Updated "papers" to "magazines" as suggested. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've read a few of the sources and haven't unearthed any scandals so we're pretty NPOV. Just the few minor points above to deal with and changing <i> </i> to '' '' and we'll be good to go. SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Smartse: I usually let the bots take care of translating my HTML to Wiki-code, but I went ahead and fixed it, in addition to the other notes above. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent - I'll merge the histories but note that you're not editing the article directly. SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll wait a bit to make sure it's stable before taking it the usual GA round. I'll also be doing The Hollywood Reporter eventually, which has a lot of overlap with this page, if you're interested in taking a look later on. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I will review this article. There is one image used in the article, File:JaniceMin.jpg, which is hosted on Wikimedia Commons and is confirmed via WP:OTRS as a free-use-licensed file. I had a look over the article a few days ago (diff), and it appears that both the article edit history and its talk page appear stable and without any conflict or ongoing problems going back over three (3) months. Rest of review pending. — Cirt (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. Looking forward to your review. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 22:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary issue that can be worked on while rest of review is pending: Checklinks tool shows some link problems. As there aren't that many links in the article -- I just recommend archiving all links by adding fields archiveurl and archivedate to the citations (preserve the original links in the citations) and archive them by adding archived links from the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive. Example at DIFF. On another note, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no problems. — Cirt (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't gotten into the habit of adding archive links, but I really should. They are constantly disappearing or moving around. Do you mean if I just add "|archiveurl= |archivedate=" to every reference, a bot will just add archive links automatically? David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 05:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you have to go to www.archive.org, find the proper archive link, and add the archive link and the archivedate, please see Example of my edit at DIFF. Please also read Help:Using the Wayback Machine. You could also use Wikipedia:Using WebCite. — Cirt (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So your latest two edits would have to be undone and go back to the version before that, keep the old original links, and add the archived links, per the above tutorial at WP:WAYBACK. — Cirt (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! I've added archive links and dates to all the sources. I wasn't able to find a current, live, working link for the broken one, but luckily archive.org had a copy preserved. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

{{not done}} -- I'm confused, I don't see the archived links. Even if old links are broken and don't work, you should be able to preserve both the historical old links, and the archived links. And works should go in the work field and not the publisher field, and use cite news not cite web. — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, somehow I had reverted all the edits I made. It's fixed now. I prefer to use cite web if it's more of a website and probably shouldn't be in italics as the newspaper parameter does. The difference between a news source and a website is often not very distinguishable. I don't use the "work" parameter, because that's not really what regular people call a news organization, though I do use it sometimes if the source is part of a series. But I did change a lot of them that were obviously newspapers into cite news. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks much better. Checklinks tool still shows one more link that can be archived. — Cirt (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think External Links normally use archive URLs (that's an external link showing up in the tool) David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 00:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Best to archive everything. Increases the article's posterity, and therefore, its quality. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done I disagree, but went ahead anyway - not really a topic worthy of debate anyway. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 02:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how it's a link to a news article from 2008, archiving it will only help, as it's unlikely they would change the content of the article itself eight years later. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question: How is the first entry in the External links sect, an "External link" ? — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. How's that? David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice! That's exactly what I was going to suggest! You could also probably add and populate See also and External links sects, as well. — Cirt (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh, not a big fun of See also sections, as they typically just repeat wiki-links already in the article, but I went ahead and started one with links to the two publications she runs now. Billboard is also GA, though Hollywood Reporter probably never will be. For External links, I don't have anything in particular that would be good for it. I usually prefer Further reading OR External links, but not both, seeing as they both serve a similar purpose. But again, not something I'll argue over if you think there's something that should be under External links that doesn't make sense for Further reading. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 20:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Surely she has some bio pages and profile pages of sorts of the type for External links sect? — Cirt (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not - not that I've seen. The company she works for "The Hollywood Reporter-Billboard Media Group" doesn't really have a website. The editorial masthead of the individual publications just list her, but don't include an actual bio like many publications do. I have not found any kind of personal website about herself. I don't think there is any appropriate "official link" in this case. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 05:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• This bio profile would be good for an External links sect. Perhaps this link as well. And also this one. Bloomberg Business profile would be good as well to consider adding to the sect. — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This first one is outdated. Twitter and Instagram are listed under "Links normally to be avoided" at Wikipedia:External links. Bloomberg is also out-dated and is basically just a list of awards she has won. I don't think any of these would make the page better, but I won't argue over it if you want to add them. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

They're just suggestions, no worries. — Cirt (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 27, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
4. Some peer review semi-automated suggestions at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Janice_Min
5. No dab links found in tool at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Janice_Min
6. Checklinks shows no problems in tool at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Janice_Min
7. Copyvio Detector tool shows no issues in links check at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Janice+Min&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0
8. 2nd Copyvio Detector check, this time using search engine feature, shows no problems at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Janice+Min&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=0&turnitin=0
9. Per WP:LAYOUT, please move See also sect above References sect in order in article.
10. Per WP:LEAD, article intro lede sect is a bit skimpy. Please expand lede intro sect, to summarize entire article's contents, so lede may function on its own as a standalone summary of the entire article. Suggest probably three (3) paragraphs of four (4) sentences each.

2. Verifiable?:

1. Duly cited throughout with good use of in-line citations.
2. Please wikilink notable publications inside the citations for example like New York Observer.
3. Please make sure those publications in citations are italicized by double checking they are in the "work" field not the "publisher" field.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is indeed thorough, with multiple different topics of the subject arranged well into subsections to assist the reader with flow and readability as well as editing organization.

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. I've read over all the talk page commentary about NPOV.
2. In addition I've read over the article itself several times since starting this GA Review.
3. I purposefully waited during the GA Review to give it some time to both assess stability and see if there were any ongoing issues.
4. After consideration I feel that the tone of the article itself is indeed neutral.

5. Stable?

1. Upon inspection of article edit history going back several months, article is stable and devoid of ongoing editing conflicts.
2. After review of the talk page, I see only good constructive feedback and amiable quality improvement participation among editors.

6. Images?:

1. One free-use licensed image, hosted on Wikimedia Commons, at File:JaniceMin.jpg, with proper WP:OTRS confirmation.
2. Any other free-use relevant images that could be added to the article to perhaps have at least a 2nd free-use image in the article? If not, no worries.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for a thorough GA review @Cirt:!! I have responded below in a numbered fashion to correspond to the numbers in your review, responding just to the ones that point out a problem that needs fixing or discussion.

Well-written:

9.  Done Moved the See Also section up.

10.  Done How's that for the Lead? I think what you suggested is a tad long for an article this short, but I made it quite a bit longer than before.

Verifiable

2. I won't argue over it, but I prefer not to add wikilinks to publications in the citations. In my opinion it is over-linking.

3.  Done As discussed, I prefer to use the "newspaper" field for italicized print publications, but I did see quite a few print publications that weren't italicized and fixed it. Some of them had italicized wiki-code, which just un-italicized it, since the newspaper parameter already italicizes it.

Images

2. I don't have any images of her when she was younger. Wikimedia Commons does have more photos of her, but they would be redundant. I could probably get images of her John & Kate + 8 stories mentioned in the US Weekly section or of the cover of her book. I can also ask her employer if you have any other ideas for photos they may be able to provide.

David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 14:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Some additional points on revisiting:

1. Some publications still are not italicized in citations, I see one for The New York Times.
2. Disagree on wikilinking in citations for publications. For example, if the readers want to check what is "SELF", and they type it into Wikipedia search, they may not find the right publication. Same for all the other ones that happen to be notable with existing entries.
3. Have you had some time to look over and consider my suggestion for point number 3, above, please?
4. WP:LEAD looks much better.
5. WP:LAYOUT looks much better, but I think the publication name should be italicized in the See also sect.
6. I think adding another free-use picture is not redundant and would help increase flow for the reader to offset the text in the body text perhaps to the right side later down in the article.
7. File:Janice Min.jpg -- tagged as missing WP:OTRS permission, perhaps you can help with that one?
8. Suggest adding {{commonscat|Janice Min}} to bottom sect of the page.

Good job so far, — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1.  Done All print publications are now in italics

2.  Done I've added wikilinks for all the reference publications

3.  Done I've shifted "publisher" to "work" parameters

5.  Done I've added italics in the See Also section

6.  Done I've added another free image from Wikimedia Commons

7. I did not upload File:Janice Min.jpg, nor is it included in the page. I did attempt to cleanup a lot of images their prior covert editing service uploaded without proper copyrights. It probably should just be purged. I think I may have brought this image up once before - not sure why it never got deleted.

8.  Done I've added the commons template to indicate more images are available

David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks much better. Have you had some time to look over and consider my suggestion for point number 3, above, please? — Cirt (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to "3. Please make sure those publications in citations are italicized by double checking they are in the "work" field ..." Were you referring to "3... but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate."? David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, have you had a chance to look over the latter, as a suggestion only, to at least consider it, and at the very least read the procedures at WP:GAREVIEW ? — Cirt (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes - it's a complicated issue for me. For example I skimmed the current nominations just now for any org/bio/business/product pages along the lines of where I am experienced enough to review. HTC First came to mind, but as an Android phone, it most likely uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon chip, where I have a COI, and my involvement would lead to accusations of impropriety. Andrew M. Gleason is dead, so there's unlikely to be any COI issues, but the first thing I notice is that the Wikipedia editor authoring the page has an article about himself that probably shouldn't exist. In my experience, when I make edits that editors don't like, or fail their GA review, or provide feedback on the nomination instead of just passing it, they sometimes follow me around and make contentious edits on articles where they know I have a COI in revenge (or on articles where they accuse me of having a COI, but none actually exists). Basically as a paid editor there is nowhere I can edit that won't lead to drama and accusations of impropriety, hence my being semi-retired. I'm also the only one making any good GA nominations on business pages most of the time, which is where I'm experienced in editing. Although it's regarding a nom, rather than a review, you can get an idea of what I mean here. This kind of drama happens I'd say in about 50% of the reviews I've done. I'm definitely willing to pay it forward. I've made 38k+ edits and most of those are on a volunteer basis. But if doing so leads to constant harassment, drama, accusations of impropriety and deriding remarks, then I am in a bit of a pickle, not wanting to volunteer for such abuse. CorporateM (Talk) 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that (unfortunately) makes sense. I'm sorry you've had those past experiences. — Cirt (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to CorporateM as GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. — Cirt (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: A couple of those archive URL's are now producing an error "is malformed". I've never seen this error message before - do you know anything about it? CorporateM (Talk) 11:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Request Edit

The Lead identifies the article-subject as "Janice Byung Min". I would like to request we remove her middle-name, as just "Janice Min" is her WP:COMMMONNAME (there are 49,000 search results for "Janice Min" and 278 for "Janice Byung Min") and we tend to favor the article-subject's preference if possible and not against COMMONNAME (she has requested it). CorporateM (Talk) 11:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, it is typical of articles to use the full name at the very beginning of the article (see Bill Clinton for example) and then their common name subsequently. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)