Talk:IJustine/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

1) Well-written:

• Why does it say she is an actress and a 'freelance graphic/web designer' in the lead, when she is clearly not known for that?
  • Although we are not sure where all of her current income may come from I guess it is fair to say that this is a former occupation and I have changed the WP:LEAD accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

2) Factually accurate and verifiable:

• Not convinced the sources biztechtalk.com and odeo are reliable.
  • According to http://technobabble2dot0.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/top-100-analyst-blogs-2/ , Biztechtalk.com is a WP:RS on the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Odeo is a deadlink and has been removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot find which reliable source says she was born on March 20, 1984.
  • Unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise, we should probably leave this. I don't recall its original source, but this page is closely watched and that date has not been challenged. This date concurs with imdb.com.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• The sentence about eJustine looks like original research
  • See below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing in Awards and Nominations section is mentioned elsewhere, unsourced.
  • Sourced one. Removed one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

3) Broad in its coverage

• MacBreak Weekly and eJustine only have primary sources, are they really worth mentioning?
  • According to WP:PRIMARY, as long as we do not interpret and strictly present facts that would be unchallenged, they are presentable for WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • "who acts as a sort of antagonist against protagonist iJustine. In contrast to iJustine's blond hair and normal looks, eJustine is portrayed as a brunette with a wild hairstyle and strange-looking eyeglasses" is an opinion conjured out of thin air, not fact.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • In terms of eJustine, the PRIMARY source is the videos, not my conjuring.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Lots of unrelated, apparently random images.

• 20081114_Justine_Ezarik_and_iPhone.jpg/220px-20081114_Justine_Ezarik_and_iPhone.jpg - this image adds nothing to a section called '300-page iPhone bill'. Unnecessary.
  • Ezarik has been closely associated with the iPhone. This is a valuable image for the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • According to the article, she is only related to it by her 300 page iphone bill video, making Image:300 Page iPhone bill.png a more suitable image, though I don't think that would be ok because it is copyrighted. Unless you can back up your claim with an RS and add it to the section, then it doesn't add anything still.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• The three images in the 'New Media Expo 2008' box is not relevant. New media expo is not discussed in the text, only one of the other people in the photo is mentioned in the previous section. Adds nothing to article.
  • Ezarik is an internet personality and images of her doing internet related professional appearances is relevant. Images of her at a barbecue, walking her dog or on the beach would be irrelevant. This is related to her personality. It would be like a picture of a football player playing football in a game not mentioned in his article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You need to discuss the images in the text, the reader doesn't know what a "New Media Expo 2008" is.
• Two images together are captioned with 'myspace party' and 'podcamp', neither of which is discussed in the article. Adds nothing to article.
  • Marginal. If you can get consensus of other interested editors to remove these, I would not contest, but there is little reason to remove them given that the article has plenty of real estate for images without cramping. These are internet related events of challengable professional relevance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Needs to be discussed in text, otherwise they are just meaningless images. You don't just put images in the article for the sake of it, or because they look nice.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Same with the final image, captioned with 'Intel insider event', which is not discussed in the text. Adds nothing.--Tempest429 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this is like the expo and should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • What's a Intel insider event? Was it a pivotal moment in the subjects career? Who knows, because the reader certainly doesn't. Needs to be discussed in text.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If the images are not depicting anything very noteworthy in the subjects career/life, which is what it looks like, then they should probably be removed.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Would you agree to submit this to some image experts who assess this type of thing for WP:FAC regularly?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Also, could you please strike resolved issues above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All the comments I responded to in my previous edit appear to remain unresolved (ejustine original research and images), I'm not sure how WP:FAC would help in this situation, as these are all Good Article requirements.--Tempest429 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

All of your comments are basically about WP:WIAGA 6 (b) which reads "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." We are in disagreement on what relevant means in terms of free use images, which is much looser than WP:NFCC. I see three possible resolutions

1. an informal image review by a third party
2. a WP:RFC regarding each of the images in question
3. closing this individual assessement and seeking a broader community assessment at WP:GAR.

There's nothing wrong with the images themselves, they just don't add anything to the article. Not quite sure what else there is to discuss. If you must insist in having pictures for the sake of having pictures, then it can no longer hold its GA status.--Tempest429 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear. Here are the choices

1. You can delist and force me to challenge the delist at WP:GAR in a community reassessment that I start challenging your delisting with the images remaining in the articie.
2. You can close this without delisting and start a community reassessment at WP:GAR yourself stating your reasons for objecting to the current quality rating and your perception of my objection to your request to remove the images.
3. You can accept my offer of a WP:RFC in which we enumerate images in question and request opinions.
4. You can accept my offer to seek an image reviewer from those individuals who review images for WP:FAC.
5. There are other WP:THIRD party resolutions to that I don't think we really need to get into.
6. You and I can war about the images until an admin takes some sort of action (not recommended).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are inclined to pursue choice 1, but I hope you would consider choices 2 through 4.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have delisted it because I attempted to fix the problems in the article myself, but got reverted twice. I made clear to the editor the problems with the article and linked to the relevant parts of the GA criteria. When the image and original research issues are fixed, then it can be reassesed to become a GA again. The talk page suggests the image problem is a long term issue which has been lingering for some time.

So currently fails criteria 2c and 6b.--Tempest429 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)