Talk:Joanne Gair

Breakfast with the Arts

I could use some help understanding whether she was a guest or a make-up artist on Breakfast with the Arts (http://www.locatetv.com/tv/breakfast-with-the-arts/1358251 and http://www.locatetv.com/tv/breakfast-with-the-arts/1358274).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing passes, but it still needs some work. Also, when the article talks about "Ripley's Believe it or Not?", the question mark is not needed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article passes GA although the writing still needs a little bit of work. Thank you for your hard work in improving this article to GA status. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 18:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"iconic status"

I read that she gained iconic status with a Vanity Fair Demi's Birthday Suit cover of Demi Moore in a body painting in 1992 and wondered what, if anything, that meant. It's sourced, so I read the source.

It turns out to be a rather direct quotation of some gush written by a company that's selling her stuff.

I don't think that this is encyclopedic language, or encyclopedic sourcing. Am I too harsh? -- Hoary (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather you are looking at the first paragraph of the lead. In the second paragraph look at the source for the Absolute Gair information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

Gair's career started as a music industry make-up artist. We have two prime examples of this work in cover art. She has two famous bodypaintings that are included. At TfD it looks like the two examples of her Sports Illustrated work are going to be whittled down to one. Then there are some book covers. If you have to reduce further start with the book covers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The question needs to be asked; which images are actually needed? Which images are discussed in the text of the article? Just because it is mentioned that she did work with/for X, does not mean that an image is required. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Which images do you think are needed. IMO, an average reader will not conceptualize her artistic skill by describing her as a music industry make-up artist and stylist without the images that we have. The presage her more famous bodypainting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the images are discussed in text and in context then they can and should be included, it helps to see the art. The question might depend upon added text...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are all of the images here discussed in the text? If a specific image is not discussed, it should probably not be included. The first image in the article, for instance, is only mentioned in passing- "One of her early successes was being employed to do Roth's 1986 Eat 'Em and Smile album cover (pictured left)" (while I'm here, I don't really like the self reference, but that is not a NFC issue). Is this is enough to justify showing the image? I think not. If we instead had some discussion of the image- what critics thought about the work, what she hoped to achieve with the work and so on, then the image would be useful. Right now, it's very much- "She did Y- and here's a picture". J Milburn (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gair is an artist who is not written about in Art books (yet). There is very limited WP:RS info about her that is not from her own books. In terms of whether the reader would conceptualize her talent as a make-up artist without the image, I really doubt that they would. If I told you Ms. X is a famous make up artist in the music industry, these cover works are probably beyond what you might envision. I really don't know how better to write about a notable artist who is not widely published.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Too many fair use images, particularly duplications, e.g. two album covers and two Sports Illustrated covers. I would say a maximum of three could be justified in total to show the different facets necessary. Ty 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to keep five of the nine, but think four are essential: Her two famous artworks (Demi's Birthday Suit and Disappearing Model), one depicting her Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue work and one depicting her music industry make-up artist work. That would be the bare essentials. I would still have trouble distilling the music industry work down to one because right now we have one image showing she worked with rock music and artists and one showing she worked with soul music artists giving five that are representative of her work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the two famous artworks. The artwork of the Swimsuit issue is in the same mode as Demi's Birthday Suit (i.e. appearance of clothing on a body), so one or the other would show that. One album cover shows that kind of work, i.e. decorative, not a disguise. For the amount of text three is quite enough. Ty 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the three book covers. Which album cover do you consider more important artistically?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for Kelis as showing the work more clearly. Ty 02:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the Kaleidopscope Kelis also - but whats up with the Heidi Klum SI cover? I think it should be kept as well and not deleted, it's a famous piece, although - the image should be on the right-hand side :)...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not quite describe that as a famous piece individually, but it is representative of a very important part of Gair's career. I am just having trouble cutting down the covers to one. I can not bring myself to make such an edit. However, I think the article will have either 4 or 5 images. I think 1 Sports Illustrated cover is a must.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken two out and I think the remaining ones provide a good representation of her range of work. The art on Sports Illustrated is exactly the same kind of work as with Demi Moore, i.e. clothes painted on a body. More images might well be justifiable as fair use, but wikipedia has stricter policies. I don't agree with some of the severe interpretations of these, and consider they undermine the ability to create a quality encyclopedia (see Mark Rothko for a classic example with just one image), but the differing viewpoints have to be acknowledged and worked with. Five images are not going to be accepted. Three is on the liberal side of policy interpretation. I'd like to get J Milburn's input also at this stage, as he is someone who works a lot with images. Ty 09:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not interpret the Sports Illustrated image as being the same as the Demi's Birthday Suit and current responses are two in favor of keeping it and one opposed. I am going to take the liberty of re-adding it until consensus arises for its removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think four is ok, the article looks right...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead image portrait, (needs to be released under ({cc-by-2.0]}) the Demi, SI, Kelis and Hidden model are max...I think the article is at the limit, although the SI cover is still up for deletion...Modernist (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joanne Gair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090801125516/http://www.joannegair.com:80/about1.1.htm to http://www.joannegair.com/about1.1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061008121157/http://nzbookmonth.co.nz/blogs/joanne_gair/default.aspx to http://nzbookmonth.co.nz/blogs/joanne_gair/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joanne Gair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221204220/http://www.photoimpactonline.com/gair.htm to http://www.photoimpactonline.com/gair.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221204220/http://www.photoimpactonline.com/gair.htm to http://www.photoimpactonline.com/gair.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126004940/http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/2006/0217.html to http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/2006/0217.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205095055/http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/004340.php to http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/004340.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)