Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 14:21, 6 July 2016 [1].

Emily Ratajkowski

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American model and actress Emily Ratajkowski. This is my final attempt to get this promoted in time for consideration at WP:TFA on her 25th birthday (June 7). Currently TFA is scheduled out to May 25. FAC4 was closed with a comment ending "I would expect to see deep work done to address concerns about sourcing and prose outlined by Ealdgyth, SlimVirgin, TrueHeartSusie3, and others [In FAC3 and FAC4]." I have been editing the article furiously in the last 2 weeks. It now stands at 18965 characters of readable prose. For comparison notice how much content has been changed/removed since the following milestones:

22080 character 21:26, 26 April 2016 version when FAC4 ended
23556 character 06:41, 26 April 2016 version last comment at FAC4
23805 character 23:42, 24 April 2016 version when I started actively chopping down the article
24671 character 12:11, 20 April 2016 version when I responded to TrueHeartSusie3 comment on the article's length on April 20 in FAC4,
24541 character 04:13, 18 April 2016 version when I started FAC4,
25889 character 13:02, 9 April 2016 version when FAC3 ended.

I am especially hopeful that my revisions are satisfactory since both Drmies and Linguist111 have given unsolicited thanks (e.g., here) for my edits to the page in the last week, which I hope is a sign that my recent edits have substantially changed the page in a good way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to FAC coordinators (Ian Rose and Laser brain): The article currently has an open GOCE. In FAC4, Laser commented that "an article with an open GOCE request strikes me as admittedly unprepared". In this case, the open GOCE was made during FAC4. Given all the changes I have made to the article since then (noted above), I don't think the open GOCE is an admission of unpreparedness. It remains open only because 1.) it is at the top of the GOCE queue and likely to be addressed promptly, 2.) I don't think a GOCE would hurt the nomination, and 3.) This is now a time-sensitive nomination. If either of you thinks I should close the GOCE in order to go forward, I am willing to do so. Also, I am willing to suspend the nomination (hopefully for no more than 48 hours) if a GOCE is considered disruptive to the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Drmies

edit
  • I will just say that I think Tony has done a good job cutting this down. I think more needs to be cut. A 91k article on a minor, minor figure, with minor parts in maybe two notable movies and a few TV things, with 205 references from mostly the entertainment press, and six full paragraphs on her "activism and advocacy" which, while verified, is minor in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think that this is the kind of thing we ought to be doing. Yes, the stuff is verified, and well-organized--but it's stuff, just stuff. I don't want to start a fight but FA criteria 4... BTW, yes, I thanked Tony for an edit that pruned the article some, and I will gladly continue to do so. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • this edit was the one you thanked me for. It took the article to 19447 characters of readable prose. I have not often seen people discuss the wikitext size of articles at FAC. I think it is the readable prose count that matters. Yes she is a low-importance actress. The question is not whether her acting career has been impressive. Note that no one known primarily as a model has achieved FA for some reason. Should we really discount entertainment press sources so much that a model cannot achieve FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I do my thing, you do yours. She is a low-importance actress, and devoting this much space to a low-importance actress, with low-level sources (not a single book, I don't think), and then putting it in the FA window for the Wikipedia shoppers, sorry, I have a hard time with that. I've made similar comments before on GA reviews and, I guess, all over the place, not just in K-pop articles. I made a suggestion or two. She [well, the article] can get to FA status without 205 references and with less text and less table porn. I think it's high time that we take item 4 seriously--not just here, but also, and perhaps especially, in GA reviews. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • At GA, there seems to be no relation between importance and the viability of a nomination. Thus, articles of all levels of importance seem to be viewed as deserving of the same level of detail. However, here everyone wants to say that this subject is low-importance and thus less worthy of consideration for FA and less worthy of editorial attention. I.e., since she is not an award-winning actress, she should not be detailed on WP. At GA, there is no such relationship. Here it seems that WP:WIAFA 4 is used to say that an article is being detailed more than a higher importance article that would be more deserving of that level of detail. There is a clear disconnect between the interpretation of WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. I believe I had addressed all the source review issues prior to closing FAC3, but the reviewer had not evaluated my responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, one of your reservations was "six full paragraphs on her 'activism and advocacy'". I have been looking at the other actress FACs and have reorganized this content. I was wondering what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Numerounovedant

edit

The article has little issue with the prose and its quality and is well written. However, IMO it does not have enough substance to work with. Most of the article is self analytical, it talks more about itself rather than the subject. Review after review for minor roles, sub sections which barely have a purpose and the unnecessary table. I will have to look at further such articles to actually see how much of this article is even required. Even the references are cluttered and not required in places. Have no issues with the prose though. NumerounovedantTalk 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Vensatry that the article muddles with the tense at times. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said there has to be more to it. All the FAs that I referred to use past tense. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger Regardless, I didn't mean to point out at the use of past/present, it is the variation that bothered me. NumerounovedantTalk 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Numerounovedant, I did catch a few wrong tenses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTENSE gets very confusing. Take the following consecutive sentences: "Piers Morgan states that Ratajkowski's form of feminism is a misguided affront to true feminism,[182] labeling it pseudo-feminist gibberish.[183] After Morgan wrote that "Feminism Is Dead", the Chicago Tribune's Heidi Stevens as well as Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter and The Daily Telegraph's Helen Pankhurst said Ratajkowski neither killed nor bolstered feminism.[184][185]" Ratajkowski's feminism is an ongoing thing criticism about it are in the present. However, the following sentence is about a particular time in the past that must be written in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Numerounovedant, @FrB.TG: and Vensatry, Looking back at the history of tenses in this article and my confusion/belief about how to interpret WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE, I see that in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3, GRuban complained about tenses on 03:00, 30 March 2016‎. This led to my own March 30 revisions to the page here and here based on MOSTENSE and FICTENSE. At some point GRuban was satisfied with these changes. I asked Twofingered Typist to consider MOSTENSE (among other issues) in the copyedit. He never actually made tense changes in his copyedit and I assumed this was a ratification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as I have stated elsewhere, I believe that WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE mean that we should consider films ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it loses focus a lot, instead of focusing on the subject it talks about just "stuff". Some instances just from the "Leading Roles" section-
Around the time of its release, Ratajkowski was prominent in the media with cover appearances on Grazia France, British GQ, harper by Harper's Bazaar, InStyle UK, and InStyle Australia as well as a role as a 2015 MTV Video Music Awards presenter. The British GQ cover story was photographed by Mario Testino, who produced a short film for the magazine's website." - How is the latter part important?
To my knowledge she has worked with 5 photographers who are notable enough to have their own WP articles. I wanted to work in Testino's name as I have worked in the other 5. He not only photographed the cover story, but also produced a video used on the magazine's website. I thought this was a good way to mention him. I am open to suggestions on how to work in his name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just realized it was unclear the short film was about Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. There are a couple more instances. NumerounovedantTalk 05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ratajkowski's We Are Your Friends performance received mixed reviews. She played Stanford University dropout Sophie, the love interest of Efron's character and girlfriend/personal assistant of Wes Bentley's character. Ty Burr of The Boston Globe and Nell Minow of Beliefnet are unimpressed. Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny of RogerEbert.com praise her performance. Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Morris note Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal previously seen in "Blurred Lines". Duralde of TheWrap states that Sophie was a thin role (as did Burr), while Christopher Gray of Slant Magazine described Sophie as a muse. Bilge Ebiri of Vulture.com says that Ratajkowski's role takes a back seat to the love triangle's central Efron/Bentley relationship. - Aren't those a little too many? Not to mention they add little value to the article, most of them have no praise description of what the critics actually thought of the performance, the rest just describe the role, and not the performance. Again an example of the analysis of the film maybe, but definitely nothing to do with Ratajkowski. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to too many, the article currently includes all 11 critics whose reviews were mentioned by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and who both have their own WP articles and whose reviews were in media outlets with their own WP articles. As you may have noticed you are at FAC5. I have been under pressure to shorten the article. If you look at the version when FAC3 ended, you will see that I described the critical commentary more fully in that version. It sounds like you are suggesting restoring some of that. I could make it look shorter by not mentioning each affiliated media outlet. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are examples of prior content that was removed: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[130] Nell Minow is also unimpressed.[131] Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny praise her performance with descriptors such as "entrancing", "sweet", "sexy" and "sensible".[132][133][134]
In fact it once (23:10, 15 March 2016) said: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe described her performance in the role as "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[124] Nell Minow was also unimpressed.[125] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing", while noting her physical contribution to the film.[126] Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet".[127] Glenn Kenny was satisfied with her presentation of her "sweet, sexy, and sensible" character.[128]
Numerounovedant, can you tell me what you think might need to be restored?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest bringing down the number of reviews based on their relevance. What good are 11 reviews if none actually talk about her performance. I'll go through all the reviews personally and suggest the ones which I believe are more relevant. Give me an hour for this. NumerounovedantTalk 05:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, the review with 1) Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "surpassingly dull" makes perfect sense (in context to a negative review), I would restore it. 2) Instead of saying Nell Minow was also unimpressed you can quote him saying that she "does more posing than acting" and merge it into the previous sentence. 3) I would also merge Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing" & Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet" into one sentence 4) Glenn Kenny doesn't make any critical commentary so I would remove it. Rest I would keep Robbie Collin's part but remove all the remaining commentary because it simply talks about the role and not the performance. NumerounovedantTalk 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me why we don't want to describe the role as thin or point out that her first leading role is not actually part of the dominant relationship to clarify things for the reader.--16:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to completely drop the idea, but extensive critical commentary just on the role isn't the way. You could mention the former review which calls the role thin, but the latter about her role in the relationship really doesn't belong here. The article is about her not the film or its characters. Facts like these are better suited in the film's article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the love triangle comment to the film article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the thin comment (Basically as it was before).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the "Leading Roles" (again not exhaustive) - The second paragraph is not at all informative, and has atleast 6 references thats tand for nothing, because the corresponding text does not offer anything.
I think we have gotten that paragraph restored to significance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rise to fame- "Much commentary on Ratajkowski's debut focuses on her sex appeal,[68][69][70] but some note that her small role as a "duplicitous and manipulative former student" is critical.[71][72]" Again, nothing about her performances and cluttered refrences. Isn't there a source that talks about the round up? & "Her role as Adrian Grenier's character, Vincent Chase's visually appealing love interest is described in sexist ways in the press,[85][86][87] with mentions of her as the object of multiple affections.[88][89][90]" - Too many references that talk about the same thing. (Not even a significant detail or addition to the article) NumerounovedantTalk 16:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I suppose to support a "Much commentary" claim with one comment. I thought three was appropriate for such a claim unless you just think the claim should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are supposed to cite an article that says so. 2-3 articles about the comments barely support the claim for "Much commentary". For an instance, see the discussion on this page. I really think that such claims need just one source that says so, instead of multiple sources actually talking about it. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I supported a "Some note" fact with two. I thought this was appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not both the "much commentary" , "Some noted" border WP:WEASEL. You rather state names, (if the obsevation is vital to the article) or remove the claims. The latter is the case here (IMO). NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The round up? What does that mean? Commentary on her roles thus far is somewhat limited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A round up would be an article that sums up her performance, or rather attributes an adjective to it which can be used in the article. For instance a RT consensus. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is one ref considered better than three?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to refer to WP:CITEKILL (last paragraph from the lead), if you still believe all the references are required try WP:CITEBUNDLE. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by not a significant detail or addition?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this article for instance I would consider - "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[144][145] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[146][147] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds.[148]" to be a "significant detail", whereas "She reports receiving a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." - would qualify as unnecessary/"not a significant detail". NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to cut out unnecessary details and welcome it when you point to them. In regards to the Entourage summary, is it unnecessary to say she was the object of multiple affections or that she was viewed in sexist ways by the press?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Early leading roles" - She has had just one film to her credit in the section. I don't know how much upcoming projects account for a "Leading roles" section, they better be separated as upcoming projects and the entire section be merged into the previous one. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I created this section after her first leading role and the early development of Cruise which seems to be a leading role. Her more recent upcoming projects are not leading so I think you are right to merge this back. I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defense of the table, there was probably a time when a discography or filmography was considered an unnecessary table. We have never had a person notable primarily as a model achieve FA. Thus, I thought I would try to assemble a table detailing her modelling history. A coverography could be shown to be as notable as a filmography is for an actress or a discography is as a musician because there are multiple reliable sources that present the details that I present in the table. I am not just cobbling stuff together. You can go out to the internet and find this stuff fairly easily, IMO. Models.com does the most comprehensive job at covering this, but fashionmodeldirectory.com does a decent job at covering these and there are other sources. Since we are suppose to summarize the secondary sources, this type of table is as interesting an element of summarizing secondary sources for a model as a filmography or discography might be. Its importance to a biography is similar to Template:2010–19 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit in the sense that for people more notable for things other than modelling it is considered irrelevant, but for models it is considered important. Sure a coverography for an actress is not really an important thing, but for a model, it is somewhat defining.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some other observations-

"Ratajkowski was told that modelling could lead to an acting career." - It is again very Weasely, not to say uninformative.
I don't think WP:WEASEL really applies, but I have removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 21 May 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", she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." - Really doesn't belong in the career section.
I am not sure where to move it. See what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either personal life or media image NumerounovedantTalk 12:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is in media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" As they touch, they reveal each other. Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video." - Does not belong in her article, maybe the music video's article.
"Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Alonso Duralde of TheWrap, note Ratajkowski's early disappearance from the film." - How is that important?
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "March 2013 GQ Türkiye" images should be reduced in size. They are really sitracting this way.
180px-->160px.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards Weak Support (after the remaining queries have been addressed), but I suggest a thorough source review. I wish I could do it myself, but I am afraid that I have prior commitments. Ping me after the source review and I'll be happy to help further. Good Luck! NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I am watching the page, but ping me when the source review is done. I think it's really going to help the article. Good work though. NumerounovedantTalk 06:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so as far as Zeta-Jones' article goes it had certain substantiated statements, with full commentary. While that could be a fine addition to the article, the discussion here was more of he said: she said: sort. I wouldn't mind if you add a well substantiated claim on her sex appeal with some actual commentary. For instance, the comment on her rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal here. NumerounovedantTalk 05:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by FrB.TG

edit

Nothing of major concern so far (my review is only till early life section). FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing your proposal at several FACs, including Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Stone/archive1, I would like to say that reviews should be in past tense as they are events that have passed. Besides, I have never seen an article to do so (oh and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a poor justification). FrB.TG (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. NumerounovedantTalk 15:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG see commments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3 and above regarding MOS:TENSE and WP:FICTENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I agree with you, I can't say that using past tense is wrong. I would like to hear from @FAC coordinators: on this matter. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to start a discussion at WT:FILM.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using present tense when describing what a reviewer said is incorrect. I would not consider that an actionable request as a coordinator. As a reviewer, I would oppose any article using such language. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. It looks much better with the past tense. I will add further comments very soon. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, Thanks. It would be much better for me if you could add those comments in the next 48 hours. I have little free time on Friday through Monday because I drive for Uber those days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be of trivial tone as other reviewers have taken note of, but I don't expect anything else in the biography of a model. FrB.TG (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vensatry (a quick scan)

edit
As mentioned above to Numerounovedant, Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to initiate a discussion at WP:FILM because this should set a precedent for future articles as well. —Vensatry (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry, I have tried to reverse myself. Please let me know what the current status of your consideration of this article is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax

edit

Hi, TonyTheTiger. I made some edits[2][3] to put Emily's article that much closer to a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back in a couple of days and I will be happy to !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, I noticed that you made the cats fully alphabetical rather than having traditionally leading (birth year and living people) cats first. Please comment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TonyTheTiger. Is there a MoS guideline for putting them out of order like that? I just do what makes sense to me, which happens to be alphabetically. I always put the category with the pipe in it at the top, and the rest I do an alphasort on. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Category_order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkingfax, have you been following the commentary there?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I will now. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TonyTheTiger. There are at least three sections that lack images yet the Career section has images that are creating a corridor around the text in that section. See what can be done about that. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add more images from Commons:Category:Emily Ratajkowski? I hadn't because they are almost all from the same 2013 date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TonyTheTiger. I would suggest reducing the number of images in the Career section to avoid the image corridor around the text. I will look around for other images later for other sections. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged the images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Happy Birthday, Emily! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Some concerns:

  • The nude image is non-free and in my view its use here doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #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."
    The rationale says the image provides "critical visual information" but doesn't say what that is. The argument in FAC 3 seemed to be that, because a man liked an image of a naked woman enough to offer her another job being naked, we must see the image to be able to understand. Using that reasoning, if a film director offers someone a part based on their performance in a previous film, we could claim fair use of that film to help us understand the director's point of view. Or if someone gets a second book contract because their first book was successful, we could claim fair use of that book to "significantly increase readers' understanding" of why the second contract was offered.
    The rest of the non-free rationale should be removed: "Ratajkowski has advocated against censoring female nudity (especially her own) and as the w:WP:BLP subject would take offense to censorship of her nudity." [4]
  • The horizontal images in the "Music video performances" section look crowded and squeeze the text. Because of the shadow, the lipliner image looks as though ​something is being smeared on her. The semi-nude image is ​un​pleasant. The captions – "receiving hair spray," "getting lipliner​" – could use a rewrite.
    It isn't clear that the video from which the images derive is free (see Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). It was uploaded to Vimeo as cc-by in March 2013 by Eric Longden, who filmed it with Mike Marasco. [5] Is Longden the copyright holder​? ​The video ​opens with "Tony Kelly for GQ Türkiye" (see Tony Kelly)​, so I would expect one of them, probably GQ, to hold the copyright. ​​GQ Türkiye uploaded it to YouTube in April 2013 with the standard licence. [6] Longden did the same in September 2013. [7] Someone should ask Longden to confirm the release and that he's the copyright holder (and/or contact GQ), then forward the details to permissions.

SarahSV (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand your issues to be the following:
  1. Images fail WP:NFCC #8 because
    1. Reasoning is that "man likes random nudity which led to more nudity so we need to show the reader the random nudity"
    2. FUR needs clarification
      Expanded--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    3. FUR content unnecessary
      Content irrelevant to WP:NFCC removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Images crowd text.
    Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lipliner image looks smeared
    We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Semi-nude image is unpleasant.
    We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:CAPTIONs need to be rewritten.
    I could use some advice. I am not sure what the problem is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Image free use unclear (Who is copyright holder?.)
    INeverCry and czar reviewed the images at Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot. As I understand it, cinematographer, publisher and subject each have some sort of rights, but Ratajkowski's rights are merely {{personality rights}} in this case. I do not understand why a cinematographer can release his copyright and make something free without the consent of the publisher. Thus, I am not sure what verification I am being told to needs to be sought. Given my level of expertise, I would feel more comfortable if someone else sought this clarification or would give me a precise question/set of questions to ask.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyright holder is the only one that can release the video, so you need to find out who that is and make sure they understand the implications of releasing it. In the case of GQ, they will understand, but it might have to come from their legal department. Links here to email addresses for GQ, Tony Kelly and Eric Longden. [8][9][10] See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a suggested email the copyright holder needs to send. SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SarahSV, as I understand it there is no claim that GQ has relinquished its copyright or that Kelly has released his. The only relevant inquiry is whether Longden has released his and then we need to determine if his act is sufficient. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not correct. It is most likely that either Condé Nast (GQ) or Tony Kelly or Eric Longden owns the copyright, not all three. You need to find out which one does. Then you need to ask the copyright owner for a release under a Creative Commons licence and forward that release to permissions. It seems to me unlikely that the copyright holder would release an expensive photoshoot so that others could make commercial use of it. But of course I could be wrong about that; perhaps they had their reasons. But first, you need to find out who owns the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, I know I am not qualified to address the issues of the copyright. However, I do know enough about the issue to tell by your response that you do not understand the issues of the copyright either. You speak of the copyright as if it is a singular thing. There is not one copyright holder for a published work. There are typically 3 or 4. May I ask if you are even a qualified image reviewer because someone who does not understand copyrights well enough to understand this might serve WP well to step aside of an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clarification needs to come from permissions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard back from Longden and he is not the copyright holder. I'll forward the correspondence to permissions. SarahSV (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • SlimVirgin, I repeat. There is not one copyright holder. There are sort of layers (depending on the medium think about a subject/subject creator, a performer, a recorder and a publisher). The first copyright is the subject creator. I.e., sculptures are always copyrighted in certain jurisdictions. Works of music are often copyrighted by a lyricist and a songwriter or teams thereof. Meanwhile, people are not copyrighted in the United States, but {{personality rights}} are different by jurisdiction. It may be the case that a human subject owns a copyright to photos of them in Turkey. However, I doubt it given the number of photos that we have of Category:Turkish footballers. Given that human subjects in Turkey are probably not copyrightable per se, the next level of copyright is determined by who did the work. A photographer/videographer always owns the copyright to his own work (consider the Monkey selfie issue), but he may be restricted from releasing it if the subject has a copyright. Given what is in Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot, Longden may very well want to take back his released copyright, but if he is in fact the photographer, he can not unless at the time he released the work he did not have the right. Of course, he may have given up his copyright, but if he is the photographer he has/had a copyright. I.e., if he had signed over his copyright to Condé Nast (GQ) as part of a publication contract or performed the work as an employee of Condé Nast, he may have surrendered his copyright. Is he claiming he was not the photographer, that he was an employee of Condé Nast or that he signed over the photographer copyright to Condé Nast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The director of the video has separately confirmed that it is not under a free licence. It appears that the Vimeo tagging as free was just a mistake. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you are talking about Tony Kelly when you say director. Kelly is not required to release his copyright in order for the filmmaker to release his AFAIK. I don't think he was ever a concern for the image reviewers. Unless we are going to claim Longden's input was like that of the monkey and that Kelley has a copyright over the work he directed with Longden, we do not need Kelly's consent or release. Longden is pressing the buttons and has a copyright.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this misses the point. The question is whether anyone has released this video. There are three entities that we assume might be in a position to do so: Condé Nast/GQ; the director; and/or the cameraman. The director and cameraman have both said the video has not been released.
    When we add images to FACs nowadays, we're expected to do due diligence. Sometimes it's obvious on Vimeo, YouTube or Flickr that the person posting a release is the copyright holder and really did intend to release it, but often it isn't. In this case, it's a red flag that someone would release an expensive photoshoot so that other commercial entities can use it for profit.
    The safest thing to do in these cases is to email them, ask if they own the copyright, and make sure they understand what a Creative Commons licence entails (namely that anyone can use their work for any reason). When that is confirmed, if you forward the correspondence to permissions, then it's on file that the release was confirmed and understood. SarahSV (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Vimeo account was his, it does not matter whether he now says he intended to release his copyright. He probably did not expect to see his work all over wikipedia. I am sure he did not expect to see his work posted on WP at Hair rollers, Lip liner, and so on (See the what links here link for Ratajkowski). He could now say he did not want to release it as an attempt to take back his release, but I believe it is too late.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not supposed to take advantage of people who have made mistakes. Someone might have an intern upload something and add the wrong tag. Or they might believe they have released it but they don't own the copyright. Or they do own the copyright but didn't realize what releasing it meant. That's why it's important to email people before uploading if there is room for doubt, particularly if it's for a featured article.
    I had a photographer release an image to me once of a person, a very clear release, after I had explained to her what it meant. It was a good photograph, except that she had added a strong orange colour to the person's face. I removed the colour, uploaded the image and added it to an article. She immediately emailed me to say I did not have her permission to remove the orange, and she was upset because she thought it only looked good with the added colour. In fact it looked very strange. I therefore deleted the image and regarded the release as invalid, because it was obvious that she had not understood what a release meant, and I didn't want her to be upset. SarahSV (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest taking the lot (the category) to deletion review on Commons if the video's license is being challenged. There are all kinds of different rights depending on the artistic direction, the cinematography, music, country-specific, etc. and of course whether the cinematographer had the rights to release (was it work for hire?) The "license review" on Commons exists to confirm the status of a release on an external site—so while of course we cannot check the rights situation of every release, it is at least plausible that Longden's official channel has the rights to relicense under Creative Commons. But based on SV's inquiries, this warrants more discussion on Commons I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 01:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be that simple. The CC license is irrevocable, so our own diligence and grace period separates mistake from regret. But this aside, ticket:2016052410026559 says that GQ owns the copyright and that Longden only has creative rights, so the video would not be his to relicense. I've opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot czar 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your NFCC issue continues to have nothing to do with either WP:NFCC or the responsive WP:FUR. In response to my revised FUR, you continue to assert that "non-free images must satisfy NFCC" without explanation-19:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) There are three main points to the FUR. If any of the three are valid it does satisfy NFCC. As an image reviewer, you must communicate why the points are invalid. 1.) The image is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that the image was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the image.
What you need to explain is something like 1.) The image looks not much different from what I would have imagined a fame-propelling magazine cover to look like and adds nothing. 2.) I found the composition to be about what I would have expected of such a magazine cover and the image adds nothing or maybe I found the composition to be overhyped and unspectacular enough that I can not believe The NYT expended any space describing it in various ways. 3.) I found her appearance to be about what I would have imagined based on such a statement and it added nothing.
If you can get back on topic (since you revel in discussing the nudity of the image), and cogently explain why none of these points are valid, we can move forward on whether the image should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GRuban

edit
Addressed comments
  • "Ratajkowski staged theatrics for her family as a child." Heh, heh, heh. As a parent, my immediate reaction was "and what child doesn't?" I recommend "shows" or "theatrical performances" or something else that isn't just a synonym for "tantrum".
  • Also link Cruise; as a major release it should have an article soon, so even a red link is worth it. Similarly In Darkness, and, probably, Easy. (Do most Netflix shows get articles?)
  • Finally add at least one word of description to each of the former two - are they films? Stage plays? TV shows? Miniseries? Music videos?
  • She said: "... there's different kinds of nudity, and ... the video was tasteful ..." - I would remove the last ellipsis, and put a period after the last quote.
  • "Ratajkowski has a variety of upcoming roles." - As of when? Assume you get hit by a truck and no one edits this article for the next three years. Will this still make sense? Add "as of 2016" or something.
  • "Cruise, which is written and directed Robert Siegel." Add "by".
  • "Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9] and claimed that the producers "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting",[48] using humor and sarcasm." - the way you have it, with the last 4 words outside the quotes and after the comma means that Ratajkowski used humor and sarcasm in claiming that the producers made the video more interesting. Is that what you meant to write? I'm guessing not...
    • Actually, if I recall my GMAT preparation correctly, the referent would be assumed to be the closest subject, which in this case is the producers. The sentence is actually correct I believe. I might wrong and the referent is the closest noun. However, Ratajkowski, is the most remote subject and noun. If I changed the sentence to read "Using humor and sarcasm, Ratajkowski..." then it would mean she used humor and sarcasm.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beckham's famous catch from 2014" - if it's famous, do we have an article on it, or the game it was in?
  • Re: SarahSV's image review. First, a disclaimer - I found the various videos the screenshots came from, and uploaded the first few screenshots, though Tony has since surpassed my work. I kind of agree with Sarah's sexism objection to the magazine cover from previous reviews, but won't oppose because on it; it's an editorial decision, and it's at least arguable as appearing nude is a non-negligible part of what Ratajkowski does. However, I do object to the assertion that before we can use the images from Eric Longden's video, we need to have Eric Longden write OTRS. The entire point of putting a Creative Commons tag on media is that other people can use it without first having to write the author and ask for permission! If you are doubting that Longden has the rights to the video, well, we can hardly demand that he upload his contract, then hire lawyers to go over it. He's the film maker, if he says he can put it under CC-BY, then we need take his word for it. After all, that is exactly what an email to OTRS would be, just his word; why is his word in an email that only OTRS can read somehow more reliable than his word in a publically visible web site like Vimeo? If you're doubting that he works for GQ, well, his web site and his LinkedIn both list GQ Magazine as clients (among numerous others). If you're doubting he has the rights to this particular video, well, the Huffington Post seems to believe him. With all due respect for Sarah's experience and judgment in other areas, and they are great, in this particular case these objections are just wrong. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi GRuban, I think you missed the point I was making, namely that we don't know who owns the copyright. The same video has been posted to YouTube by Longden and GQ under a non-free licence. See the final paragraph of my post at 14:04, 24 May 2016. The first step is to establish who the copyright holder is. If it is Longden and he intended to release it on Vimeo (assuming he understands the implications of having done so), and if his later upload to YouTube under a non-free licence was an error, then all is well and no further action is needed. But that needs to be confirmed, because the current situation is unclear. SarahSV (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longden was hired by Kelly to shoot this for GQ. Longden has confirmed that he is not the copyright holder. Kelly has confirmed that the video has not been released under a free licence. The correspondence has been forwarded to permissions, so they will decide how to proceed. SarahSV (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Sarah - you got a response from Longden?!? In one day? Great work. Though very sad, of course. What is your secret to getting the response, though? I admit, one of the main reasons I was so opposed to writing him was that I was sure he wouldn't respond. I've done this getting images of people a few times, and in my experience, writing an actual article subject for or about an image gets no response most of the time, and if any response does come (including "no", that also happens), it comes in three months! So I was sure no response would come either ever, or not in time to be useful. Sarah, tell me your secret! Oh well. You did a great job. I admit, I am not happy with the result, but it was still good work. Thank you. Grrr.
Sorry, Tony. Unfortunately, if Longden does not own the rights, and put up the video in error, we're going to have to pull the images. All those lovely, lovely images, that you and I searched the Web for, scanned the video for, screenshotted, cropped, and edited. Trust me, it hurts me too; you edited them, but I did the searching. We can't make a case out of this; even if we could, we shouldn't, because we're not in this business to hurt people; but in this case we simply can't. If he had owned the rights, and released them, then was trying to change his mind, we could make an argument that the release was non-revocable, we have done that before in a minority of cases ... but here, if he says he simply didn't own the rights, then he didn't. By default, the person taking the photograph - or in this case, the video - owns the rights, but he can sign those rights away, and if he says he did that as part of the GQ shoot, then we need to believe him. We shouldn't do it ourselves, as we don't have his email, maybe his phrasing isn't quite that; but the Commons OTRS folks will see exactly what Longden wrote, and if it is this, the pics will have to go. Very sad. We still have a couple of images from other videos, that's something. C'est la vie. --GRuban (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this guy's web page. He puts up every video that he does under creative commons licensing. I don't see how this one could be by mistake.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I have. That is one of the reasons I thought he was legitimate - i.e., clearly a professional photographer, and consciously releasing all his work - yet also because of that I am willing to believe that this one was by mistake, because he just puts all his work under this license, and may not be looking too carefully at his contracts, which may well be different for different clients. He doesn't just work for GQ, after all, he works for dozens if not hundreds of clients; while I am sure the contracts he himself writes up for the smaller clients give him all the rights to his videos, I wouldn't be surprised if at least GQ, as one of his bigger clients, could set the terms for rights. I will wait for the OTRS folks to read the email Sarah forwarded to them, but I think we should be morally prepared for it to say what she says it does. --GRuban (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, seeing those apparent releases had the opposite effect on me, because it makes no sense for a professional photographer to release all his work, especially such high-quality work, so that other people can make money from it. And at least some of the work probably couldn't be released (the Pepsi ad, for example). If you look at the same videos on YouTube, they're not free. There may be something about the way Vimeo describes its licences that makes it easy to choose the wrong tag. SarahSV (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • ""Blurred Lines" was controversial: some felt it promoted rape... Ratajkowski said that; The video has been called sexist for its degradation of women... Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9]" These two paragraphs are on the same topic, and should be combined, as all the critics who feel it promotes rape also think it degrades women, and those who don't, don't, and as Rata's responses are basically the same.
  • "On April 29, Russian entertainer Dima Bilan announced his forthcoming music video "Inseparable" (sometimes translated as "Indivisible") via Instagram.[132][133] The Russian-language video, featuring Bilan as a photographer and Ratajkowski as his muse,[134] was recorded in Los Angeles.[135]" Combine into one sentence; it doesn't matter how Bilan announced the video, since it doesn't affect Ratajkowski, and almost doesn't matter where he recorded it. I guess it might be of some interest that it's in Russian; does she speak in the video?
  • "Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, who again played the attractive object of affection in We Are Your Friends, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess." - clumsy. How about "In their respective reviews of We Are Your Friends, Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, again playing the attractive object of affection, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess."?
  • In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend Andrew Dryden, a creative director and menswear buyer.[136][137] In December 2014, Us Weekly confirmed she was dating musician Jeff Magid.[138] - Remove. We are not a gossip magazine, we are not interested in whom she's dating month to month. Ten years from now, she herself won't remember. If she marries or is otherwise in a long term committed partnership, fine, but just casual relationships are not any of our business.
    • I am confused why this content is any different than the content in other actresses at FAC that this section was modeled after. They each seem to summarize relationships that are noted in sources that rise above tabloids. It seems that personal life is suppose to summarize known relationships. I am not summarizing every date. E.g., she went with some designer to the Met Gala a few weeks ago and has social media posts with other dudes. I am not naming random dates. I am summarizing relationships that are significant according to RS. Look around at other FAs and the current FACs. This is what is now deemed proper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • She's a 24 year old single actress and model specializing in erotica, of course she dates. She similarly eats, sleeps, wears clothes, and swims at beaches, and I'm quite sure we can find articles, with extensive paparazzi photographs, saying "today EmRata was spotted at restaurant X, hotel Y, wearing a new outfit by Z, and/or at beach Q", and none of these would be suitable for her encyclopedia article either. If she didn't date, that might be notable! However, in addition, naming people that don't have articles or don't otherwise appear in the Wikipedia except for dating her can have a huge undue impact on their lives; every subsequent Google of them by another prospective date will bring this up high on the list, which isn't fair to them. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names is basically about this. I am pretty sure this content wasn't there during the last review(s), or I would have said the same there. As for the contention that we do this in other FAs, let's see; I haven't reviewed that many. There isn't an "actresses" section, but there is a Media section. Let's look at the other biographies at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies. Andjar Asmara - no Personal life section; James T. Aubrey - no Personal life section; Kroger Babb - has Personal life section, only romantic interest named is the one who became a life long partner; Vidya Balan - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one she later married; Eric Bana - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one he later married; Joseph Barbera - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are the two he later married; John Barrymore - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout (so I may have missed some on a skim) but it seems to mention one person he proposed to, whose murder trial became a major scandal, and three he married; Harriet Bosse - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout, only naming three people she married; Rudolph Cartier - no Personal life section, only mentions one of three spouses (?!?); Nancy Cartwright - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are one she married and one she planned to before his death, fallout from which death had a significant impact on her life. Those are the first ten, alphabetically. I'm going to keep my assertion that we should only mention marriages or similarly highly important romantic relationships. --GRuban (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[139][140] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[141][142] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds" - shorten, repetitive. Something like: "Rata has raised funds, done public service announcements, and committed to a short film promoting safe... for ... She describes it as her main charity because of ..." Keep the opposition sentence.
  • "As a woman who enjoys both ballet and pornographic entertainment, Ratajkowski feels that she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women." - Umm ... what? That's a striking non sequitur. What does ballet have to do with either nudity or equality? Is it specifically naked ballet? Feminist ballet? (Both exist, I imagine.)
    • I think Rata's argument is that society has a non sequitur perspective that a woman can not act certain ways or do certain things and support equality for women. However, Rata herself not only does things professionally but also has a wide range of things that she considers acceptable non of which preclude her stated beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it takes that much debatable interpretation, it's a poorly chosen quote. She has said lots of things in support of the intersection of feminism and sexuality, and we will only pick some of them to quote in our article, so we should choose ones that make sense. Unless we are trying to point out that she often says things that don't make sense? Is she prone to malapropisms? --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • She often makes the point that "she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women", but it is not always pointed out in which her activities of enjoying ballet and pornography are discussed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you believe that mentioning that she enjoys ballet and pornography is crucial to the article? First, I admit, I kind of doubt it. But, if you really feel strongly about it, it shouldn't be conjoined with her point about sexuality and feminism, as at least the ballet part isn't obviously connected. It would be like writing: "As a woman who is 5'7 tall and was born in Westminster, Ratajkowski supports sexuality and feminism." --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to counter Gloria Steinem's statement that young female Sanders supporters (and thus Hillary Clinton opponents)" - strike the parenthetical remark, it doesn't add anything
  • "and Rachael Moon of The Daily Mirror" - "The" should either be both italicised and capitalized, as part of the paper's name, or neither.
  • "Ratajkowski defended Kim Kardashian in a March naked selfie social media controversy" - a bit more description is needed. "... defended KK from criticism after K posted a naked selfie on ... " maybe?
  • "Following her letter and social media statement, her feminism became controversial." - that's just not true, her feminism was controversial from at least the moment she called herself one after appearing nude on the treats cover, if not before. You've got an entire paragraph on the controversy in the Personal life section. In fact, what makes that paragraph go in the Personal life section, and this go in the Media image section?
  • Same for the Sanders endorsement, what makes that Personal life and not Media image? Though I guess you have to put it somewhere, it's a prominent political endorsement, it's not really Personal life. How about renaming the whole Personal life section to Politics or Activism, since, after removal of the dating sentences, that's what it is about?
    • FA bios now have a section titled personal life in which people talk about relationships and causes. I question removing dating content that is in RSs. If you have a cause that becomes a media hot topic, I think it moves down into the media image section. Causes that do not stir a lot of emotions stay up in the personal life section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CR Fashion Book seems to be United States (New York, even) https://twitter.com/crfashionbook--GRuban (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRuban, what do you think of adding a FU image for her August 11 breakout day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Er ... ? I'm not sure; let me enumerate why. 1) What's the image? 2) I'm not sure what her August 11 breakout day would be. When she went on tour promoting a film that she had a minor part in? 3) Honestly, I'd recommend asking the opinion of Sarah (SV). She's the main person opposing the current fair use image in the article. There is a lot to be said for making your reviewers happy. Presumably the image you choose would wear clothes... 4) Finally, given the subject, and the occasionally heated discussion, we ... probably should not use FU as the abbreviation for fair use. Just saying. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit by the Guild of Copy Editors

edit

I have completed a requested copy-edit of this article. Here are the changes I made. I removed very little content, only a sentence or phrase here and there. I moved a couple of chunks of text to more appropriate sections.

I took care to check some potentially controversial quotations and paraphrases against their sources and rephrased or replaced the text in the article with text that better matched the sources.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it as excessive. Immediately prior to that sentence, we have "Ratajkowski did not think of .. and claimed ...", "She said that ...", and "Ratajkowski said that ... and that she believes ...." We don't need a sixth statement in a row from Ratajkowski. Five is already a lot. If you think that the "different kinds" statement adds value, I recommend finding a way to synthesize the previous five messages from the article's subject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking on this copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"before they settled in the United States" or "before they moved to the United States" would be correct. "Family" usually takes a plural pronoun, even in American English. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkyCanute

edit

This is my first time reviewing a FAC, so I posit these as comments.

I see you have done a vast amount of work on this article, which is great. However, fundamentally, the article for me does not appear to be well-written (WP:WIAFA 1). I'd go so far as to say that it is poorly written. It reads like a mosaic of citations, which have been pieced together to make the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work, and results in stilted language construction and even, at times, non-sequiturs: the writing (rather than the article), is therefore not 'engaging'. There are also, on occasion, some sentences that need work to be considered 'of a professional standard'. These are some examples, and are not an exhaustive list:

Early life

*Ratajkowski, an only child,[4] was born in Westminster, London, to American parents.[5] At Ratajkowski's birth, her mother, Kathleen Balgley, and father, John David "J. D." Ratajkowski, were aged 39 and 45, respectively,[6] and unmarried.[7] Balgley, an English professor and writer, described by Ratajkowski as a "feminist and intellectual",[8][9] was teaching under the Fulbright Program.[7] Balgley met J. D. Ratajkowski, a painter and art teacher,[8] when they both taught at San Dieguito Academy.

I can see how this has been pieced together, but it is clunky. Try instead:
Ratajkowski was born in Westminster, London, the only child of Kathleen Balgley and John David "JD" Ratajkowski, both American. Balgley, a professor of English and a writer, was teaching under the Fulbright Program, when she met JDR, a painter and art teacher, when while they were both teaching at San Dieguito Academy. At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45 respectively. Ratajkowski describes her mother as a "feminist and intellectual".
FunkyCanute, I don't have a lot of time today, but I do appreciate the involvment of better writers than me. This suggestion results in an odd use of when twice in the same sentence. Does that seem odd to you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger Yes, agreed, but easily remedied by changing the second when to while. No doubt my suggestion can be improved further. Part of what it achieves, nevertheless, is a reduction in the number of times that the names Ratajkowski and Balgley appear in the paragraph. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*As a physically mature young teenager, Ratajkowski endured pressure to suppress expressing her sexuality[19][20] and how she presented herself.[21] Several problems. 1) The sentence introduces the idea that she was physically mature in a sub-clause. 2) The alliteration in 'pressure to suppress expressing' is unappealing; while the second part of the sentence (...and how...) does not follow syntactically from the first. 3) From whom did she endure pressure?

Career

*Ratajkowski staged shows for her family as a child.[22] Her first formal acting role was as Elsa in an adaptation of The Little Match Girl at the North Coast Repertory Theatre School in Solana Beach, California.[4] She played Harriet in the interactive 2004 Lyceum Theatre production of Harriet Potter and the Throne of Applewort.[23] Ratajkowski signed with Ford Models at age 14 and did teen print catalog modeling for Kohl's and Nordstrom.[8] She attended San Dieguito Academy high school in San Diego, while modeling and acting in Los Angeles.[24]

This is a list, albeit presented as prose. It's difficult to understand what is going on partly because the timeline switches between year and her age: 2004, age 14; partly, we have unexplained jumps in location. I appreciate that some previous comments have said it needs to be cut back, but here we need to expand. Something like: "Ratajkowski began acting as a child, staging shows for her family. Her first formal role was as Elsa..." Year? Age? "Later, in 2004, she played Harriet..." What's the cause for the transition form North Coast Theatre School to San Dieguito Academy? Is it the signing with Ford Models or something else? It isn't clear.
Music video performances

*The fourth paragraph, beginning "Blurred Lines" was controversial, is very nicely put together, and is the standard to which the rest of the article needs to adhere, although it would be better not to repeat 'promoted'.

*The following paragraph repeats the polarised positions of the video's reception, with a little more detail, rather than moving on, as would be expected. Blend these two paragraphs together. Try:

"Blurred Lines" was controversial: it was called sexist for its degradation of women, and some felt it promoted rape. Others disagreed, asserting that it promoted female power and sexual freedom. Martel defended Ratajkowski's performance, saying: "it's very, very funny and subtly ridiculing." Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist and claimed that the producers, through the use of humor and sarcasm, "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting". She said that the song "gave me an opportunity to say the things that I felt about feminism today and about women in general in pop culture." She did not feel objectified and enjoyed performing in a sexual manner: the attention given to the nudity in the video, she said, showed that America had not advanced as far as it should have, and, she believed, society repressed sexuality, which was bad for both sexes.

These are examples, only, and some suggestions for remedying the prose. Most of the article would benefit from some serious attention to the writing.

Aside from this, in my opinion, the article mostly meets all the other FA criteria. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to fame
  • Overall, while this section seems very thorough, it doesn't appear to offer a progression. We occasionally jump from one item to another, and some of the timeline is unclear.

*The title strikes me as WP:PEACOCK.

*There are also two consecutive ones that begin "Ratajkowski was cast in...".

*The final four paragraphs are not in chronological order.

Personal life
  • "In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend..." It would be better to begin by informing the reader that they were together before mentioning the breakup.

TonyTheTiger, that's all the comments from me. You've addressed my earlier comments already. I've made a very small number of edits directly to the text. I will read through again. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger I've made a few more changes to the article, purely in an attempt to improve the prose. Following these, I give a support for the article's text. However, I have not reviewed any of the images. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin

edit

Oppose, 1(a), 1(d), 3 and 4. This has been at FAC since January. I suggest withdrawing it, fixing the issues reviewers have identified (even if you disagree with them), then submitting it for peer review.

  • When the last FAC ended, the article was 3,488 words. The current version is 3,105, which is an improvement, but the article is still very list-like, with a weak narrative structure and too much trivia, which makes it repetitive and hard to read. For example:

Alonso Duralde of TheWrap described the role as thin, as did Ty Burr of The Boston Globe.[105][106] Burr said that Ratajkowski's performance was "surpassingly dull",[105] while Nell Minow of Beliefnet noted that she "does more posing than acting."[107] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing",[108] and Jordan Hoffman of the Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet."[109] Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Grantland's Morris noted Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal, as previously seen in "Blurred Lines".[110][111]

The "Blurred Lines" video garnered Ratajkowski notoriety,[11] especially as a sex symbol.[63] In October 2013, Esquire magazine named Ratajkowski "Woman of the Year", over online fan vote finalist Jennifer Lawrence.[64] That December, Rolling Stone magazine listed her among its twenty hottest sex symbols.[63] In February 2014, Sports Illustrated magazine named Ratajkowski as one of twelve 50th anniversary swimsuit issue rookies.[65] In April, FHM ranked her the fourth sexiest woman in the world.[66] Maxim magazine included Ratajkowski at number 62 on its 2014 Hot 100 list.[67][68] AskMen ranked her the third most desirable woman of 2014.[69]

Ratajkowski is regarded as one of the sexiest women in the world. She was ranked in Maxim's Hot 100 list in both 2014 (#62)[67] and 2015 (#2).[164] AskMen ranked her among its most desirable women of 2014 (#3)[69] and 2016 (#14);[165] while FHM ranked her among the sexiest in 2014 (#4),[66] and 2015 (#18).[166] She is also praised for her fashion sense: Ratajkowski made Vogue Italia's Best Dressed List of 2015,[167] and Harper's Bazaar placed her atop its best dressed list at the February 2016 New York Fashion Week.[168]

    • It is pretty difficult to figure out how to improve the article based on issues like this. Basically, you are saying: This is stuff that could reasonably be presented in a listified trivia section that should be deleted. However, WP:TRIVIA says "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions..." Thus, I am thinking that this content is presented as well as it could be. The WP:LEAD currently says "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." The third example that you present is an example of grouping and ordering such facts about her sex appeal and fashion sense for an integrated presentation. Alternatively, you could make the argument that we do not need to tell the reader "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." in which case, this content is not necessary, but the main body is currently just supporting the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is promotional. For example, this sentence is pure PR: "As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with 'curves that put her in a different class from runway models',[125] she has said that she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models."[125]
  • At least two reviewers have highlighted the inclusion of the parents' ages, yet it remains: "At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45, respectively ..." There is nothing unusual about this, and it looks odd to mention it.
    • In the current FAC, both Vensatry and FunkyCanute have helped me refine the presentation of this content without any suggestion that it was not properly included. FrB.TG questioned whether the parental stage of life at birth is an encyclopedic matter. I explained that it may be and can even be WP:LEAD worthy. E.g., a posthumous birth can be Leadworthy in the case of a very notable parent, such as Rory Kennedy. Although not LEAD-worthy here, the parental stage of life at the time of birth (average age of 42) is in the skinny part of the bell curve. Noting a posthumous birth in the article is probably not normal, but in some cases is very encyclopedic. Noting older and unmarried parents is not quite as unusual as a prominent dead parent, but those two facts together make for unusual enough parental stage of life to cause need for clarification, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ratajkowski was a physically mature young teenager who endured pressure to limit expressing her sexuality ..." Better to use the primary source. [11] Many women experience the kind of sexism she describes, but the article almost gives the impression that it's unusual. Try something like: "R has written about her experience of ..."
  • The nude non-free doesn't comply with WP:NFCC #8.
  • Including current and former dates is intrusive.
  • The paragraph about feminism in the "Personal life" section isn't well-written or sourced. It uses Charlie Burton of GQ, a men's magazine, as an RS on feminism: "British GQ's Charlie Burton stated that she is a feminist with more to say than others. He said that her message is one of sexual empowerment, because sex should not feel like a service and should be beneficial to all involved parties."
    • "isn't well-sourced"? The sources are Cosmopolitan (magazine) 2x, Elle (magazine), The New York Times, InStyle, Zimbabwe Metro, and British GQ. By what standards are these not good sources? I think the writing is up to the standards of the sources, but am willing to respond to examples that might clarify your concern. Regarding Burton, WP is suppose to depict all sides of an issue. Including feminism summaries from both men's and women's publications is not a mark against the sources. In fact, it is probably exemplary. We are not suppose to only present the issue from one side. Furthermore, Burton is quite sympathetic to Rata's issues and hardly contradicts or contravenes the women's mag statements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are more paragraphs on sexism and feminism in the "Media image" section. They are list-like, not neutral and not well-sourced. The feminism sections should be combined and reduced, and based only on appropriate sources.
  • The paragraph on Blurred Lines in the "Music video performances" section leans almost entirely toward Ratajkowski's view, which is the minority view. Most sources found the song and video disturbing; the Guardian called it the "most controversial song of the decade." [12] The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is absurd; that view should not be included unchallenged.
    • The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is the view of the subject of the article. Shouldn't the content focus on the subject of the article? The paragraph clearly states that there are two sides to the issue. Then it expands upon Ratajkowski's opinion. She is the subject of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second-last sentence attributes a subhead to a journalist (the Saul source). These are usually written by sub-editors. Unless that sentence is also in the article, it should not be attributed to the reporter.

SarahSV (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, you are the SlimVirgin-whisperer. I am not finding the issues herein actionable. What am I not understanding? I am trying to WP:AGF here, but feel I am just up against someone who will do anything to keep this article from passing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh - I already got into trouble for mansplaining once, now I'm being asked to do it again! (Well, kind of. Technically mansplaining is explaining to a woman, not quite about one...) Tony, she's not writing in some foreign language that I need to interpret. (If she were writing in Russian, I could do that for you!) SlimVirgin / Sarah (SV) is an experienced Wikipedia editor, FA writer and (presumably, I haven't checked) reviewer. Yes, she does not like the nude image. Since you seem set on having it, there doesn't seem to be a way around that, it will be a road bump. You might be able to get the article passed anyway, if that is the sole objection, but if you have several road bumps like that you won't pass, so addressing the things that you and she can find common ground on seems like a good idea, rather than pushing back on every little thing, and assuming that Sarah is out to get you. She is not. No, she is clearly not a personal fan of the subject; but in the end, she is able to overcome that in an effort to make the article better. She doesn't have to actually like the subject in order to write well about it - her most recent FA is Female genital mutilation, I hope you can accept she is not a fan of that? Addressing the specific things she says, with rare exceptions like the nude image, is quite possible. For example, she is saying that Charlie Burton of GQ magazine is not an expert on feminism. You're saying that there are 6 sources for that paragraph, GQ is only one. Well, just at first glance, then, there seems to be room to meet there; the other 5 are presumably better sources on feminism than GQ, a, by definition, men's magazine. No? Surely the other 5 sources can support most if not all of what you want to write there? (If you would like to insist that Burton is an expert on feminism, please dig up some sources that say so, or noticeable works he's written on the subject, or something like that; it is theoretically possible to be an expert on feminism without being a feminist ... but frankly I suspect just relying on the mainstream papers and the women's magazines will be easier.) --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm responding because pinged, but I'm not sure what further point to make, and it seems that very little is listened to. I wrote above: "Oppose, 1(a), 1(d), 3 and 4. This has been at FAC since January. I suggest withdrawing it, fixing the issues reviewers have identified (even if you disagree with them), then submitting it for peer review."
See WP:FACR: 1(a) the writing is not "engaging and of a professional standard"; 1(d) it does not "present[...] views fairly and without bias" (specifically, it violates WP:UNDUE); 3: non-free images must satisfy NFCC; and 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail ...". To that I should have added 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources." There are several sources here that are not appropriate for their use. I offered examples of each of these issues above.
Again, I suggest reading all five FAC reviews and fixing the issues reviewers have highlighted, bearing in mind that reviewers only offer examples of problems. So the examples that are highlighted need to be sorted out, but so do others that are similar in kind. Overall I would say the article needs a rewrite and a rethink rather than a copy edit.
Tony, perhaps you could find someone to partner with who doesn't care about the subject, because part of the problem here is that you've become too close to it. I know that will be difficult, because people who don't care are unlikely to want to work on something like this, but it might be worth asking around. Either that or take it off your watchlist for a few months to create some distance for yourself. I've done that several times with articles I've worked on, and it has always helped. SarahSV (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I really feel that your review amounts to a wiki-filibuster. I have been responding to issues of the 5 FACs for several months. I have addressed some of your concerns and have no idea whether you have even noticed. Since you have the dual role as the image reviewer, it is particularly troubling that you have not articulated a response to my latest fair use rationale, which was phrased in direct response to your prior statements. Note that in this review, I have sought commentary from the other editors who were editing FAC-nominated actress articles. This is the closest I could come to partnering with an interested party "who doesn't care about the subject". Unfortunately, model articles are not common at FAC and Ratajkowski has met with more success as a model than an actess.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the major points I raised have been dealt with. The main issue for me is that the article is not well-enough written for FA. Every other objection from me is secondary to that one.
I responded to the fair-use issue at 14:04, 24 May, second paragraph. The edits to the rationale after that didn't address those points. The rationale implies that any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job – or perhaps any photograph that changed someone's career – can be uploaded under a fair-use claim so that readers can judge why the job offerers liked them.
Regarding the writing, I understand the difficulty of finding someone to partner with. But an alternative is for you not to read the article for a while. That has worked well for me in the past.
That's really all I want to say, so I'd prefer to leave it there. SarahSV (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, Your fair use argument seems to be double speak to me. Above you note your disapproval of sources of modest notability suggesting that they be replaced by more esteemed and notable sources. However, when I back up a fair use claim with quotations from The New York Times you insist that fair use images justified by the highest caliber sources should be ignored in favor of your own personal beliefs about what constitutes a notable subject. Am I to believe that your opinion/understanding on what constitutes a notable images is a better arbiter than determining what the NYT considers fit to print. I will gladly remove the image when you can explain to me why your personal understanding of notable images is superior to those of NYT editors or maybe GRuban can help me understand your points in this regard. I assume that the NYT editors are capable of determining which images (naked or not) are fit to print. The NYT does not document the notability of "any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job". I am quite sure they only consider details of certain ones fit to print and whether or not you personally are sophisticated enough destinguish which ones are that notable, they are. Your current NFCC objection is nothing more than a statement that you are not confident that the NYT's opinion of the worth of a "photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job" can be trusted over your own inability to distinguish which ones are notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, Regarding writing, I do not consider myself to be a great writer. I research and add content in as objective a manner as I can. Sometimes others get interested in subjects that I have authored for WP and have turned my research into high caliber prose. In terms of my WP:FACs, I have had my best success when other editors have gotten involved in the copyediting. The article has had 3 WP:GOCE copyedits. Honestly, I do not believe that even a great copyedit would meet with your approval because I believe your objection is a veiled objection to the fact that a model-turned-actress who rose to notability in an arguably anti-feminist manner should have an FA. However, (off the top of my head) there are two editors who have helped me get multiple FAs promoted with their substantial copyediting assistance. I don't think this subject matter interests either of them. I will ping them both (Ruhrfisch and Figureskatingfan) here and leave them messages on their talk pages. Note that in FAC3, the latter supported at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive3#Comments_from_Figureskatingfan. I have trimmed the article quite a bit and it is vastly improved since she last saw it. Maybe one of the two of them will be interested in lending a hand with a copy edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A third editor (Ceoil) who I also doubt will find this subject of interest has helped me promote some FAs but only those in the WP:WPVA area. I will also approach him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Curly Turkey has been a WPVA only FA copyeditor for me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, based on my interactions with you and my experience in getting articles through FAC with as many as 3 (Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), BP Pedestrian Bridge, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Millennium Park), 4 (First inauguration of Barack Obama, Crown Fountain, Cloud Gate) or 5 (Juwan Howard) FAC attempts, I do not feel you are discussing this topic in fairly. The purpose of an oppose at FAC is to present policy-based actionable items to a nominator in an effort to help him improve the article and WP by responding to actionable concerns until they are satisfactorily resolved. The purpose of your oppose seems to be block the possibility that good faith revisions could achieve FA. Additionally, I find it bad faith for you to present objections based on personal beliefs rather than policy. E.g., as I have noted at User_talk:Curly Turkey#Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.2FEmily Ratajkowski.2Farchive5, neither WP:NFCC nor WP:FUR has anything to do with naked images. If you want to discuss NFCC, you need to clarify the impropriety of the FUR, which is largely based on three things about the photo: 1.) It is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that it was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the photo. If you are not willing to cogently discuss this FUR's relevance to NFCC, your NFCC oppose is not policy based. If you want to object based on the article being unbalanced or promotional, you need to be willing to discuss the relevant policies. This is a give and take and in my experience at FAC, it is done on an actionable item by actionable item basis. You have been a very uncooperative discussant to date. Currently, the article has three supports and an uncooperative oppose. At FAC, I am suppose to be able to attempt to address actionable concerns, attempt to better understand actionable concerns, and attempt to question the actionability of concerns, but I can not improve the article by doing this if you are unwilling to discuss each of your actionable concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, As I have documented, some of my greatest successes are articles where I persevered through several FAC nominations. I am very willing to work to improve the article to address reasonable concerns. You posted an extensive list of concerns on June 10. I responded on June 13 and June 14. A fair discussant would be willing to engage in discourse to come to further resolution on the issues that he/she has raised. Instead, you suddenly decided to declare a nominations with 3 supports and no opposes other than your own as a nomination for a subject that should be completely overhauled with no further discussion really necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, you continue to oppose based on old versions of articles with dated objections that have been largely addressed. If we encouraged discussants to base objections based on old versions of articles, it would be impossible to improve an article to achieve FA. Just yesterday you pointed out your FAC3 March 23 objections to an old version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let Ian and I weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoriaearle

edit
Oppose per WP:WIAFA:

1 (a). The prose has been mentioned on FAC1, FAC2, FAC3, FAC4 and FAC5. It's improving but it's not good enough for FA standards. I won't give specific examples, because a., there have been lots already, and 2., at this point the nominator should step back and really work the prose from top to bottom. Giving examples seems to result in small fixes, the problems are throughout and it's not the reviewers' job to fix.

Per 1 (c), sourcing seems to be an issue. I started to make a list of people who complained, i.e, Drmies just above, but realized it's endemic and appears in all the FACs. If it's being complained about here, it's still an issue.

Per 1 (d). It's too promotional or biased. This has been mentioned in FACs 3, 4 and 5 but the material is still there, despite the many examples given.

Per 2 (b): the structure is confusing. The "Career" section tells that she began acting as a child - this is perhaps best put in the "Early life" section. It's not unusual for children to attend acting camps. Some get the bug, others not. It goes on to tell that she went to the North Coast Repertory Theatre School (which is not a performing arts school but simply offers classes and camps), then about her high school. At some point here it should probably begin the career section, since she began modeling at age 14. How did she become a model? Did she show up at an open call? Do we know? Para 3 in the "Career" section tells us that the nude for Treats! lands her a music video and the next sentence talks about Carls Jr. This is very confusing to follow, and the structure is like this throughout.

Per 3. Do we really want an image of a young woman, nude (however tastefully positioned and photographed), with the title Treats! above? What kind of a message does this send? In the least, I'd suggest cropping the image and losing the magazine's title.

Per 4. The article is overly detailed (her icloud account was hacked is maybe not notable; that she was at Coachella not noteworthy, that she made an instagram post today not noteworthy. These problems plague the article throughout and have been mentioned in FAC4 and FAC3.

I hesitated about posting here; in fact I've been thinking about it since I saw it mentioned on a talk page. In the end I decided to, but I don't like to see the badgering. That's an understatement. I won't be replying or responding. If an article fails on so many of the criteria, particularly over the course of a full year, reviewers can and should be opposing. The problem with opposing is ... well, there are lots of problems. I decided to follow my conscience. I hope I don't find myself regretting it. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Victoriaearle, I understand you have committed to being disengaged on this review, but assume you will notice the pinging mechanism and read this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding prose, I have never been able to get an FAC over the hump myself. I always hope for editorial assistance because I am a numbers guy and just don't see the issues. I am basically colorblind to quality prose. The fact that this is an FAC1, FAC2, FAC3, FAC4 and FAC5 issue is probably not much different than the other articles that I have nominated 3 (Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), BP Pedestrian Bridge, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Millennium Park), 4 (First inauguration of Barack Obama, Crown Fountain, Cloud Gate, Saxbe fix) or 5 (Juwan Howard) times at FAC before getting them promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding sources, I have responded to every issue in the last source review (at FAC3). I would welcome a source review here so that I could improve the article in that regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotional? I would love further guidance than WP:ADVERT. Biased? I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to engage in discourse.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure advice per the career beginning was quite astute. Thanks. In terms of the order of cover, commercials, etc., this is my best attempt to be chronological. The March 2012 cover led to 2013 videos, but there was other 2012 work that is encyclopedic, which is throwing you off. I am guessing, but I think the difference between a head shot getting you a job and an artistic photo getting you a job is sort of like things we are familiar with on WP. E.g., I have tried to get people to tell me about whether User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Emily Ratajkowski's blue Koma dress has a chance at article space as an element of Category:Individual dresses, but have been told me that it is a matter of whether it has enduring relevance (Are people still talking about it a long time afterward, attempting to house it in meaningful collections or museums, attempting to wear replicas, describing it as an important creation by the designer, etc.). Speculating solely based on my own opinion of this oddity in chronology that you point out, it is my opinion that a great head shot would lead to a job within a short period of time, but a photo that is considered to exhibit artistic excellence may get you a job based on the fact that as a work of art people are still talking about it 9 months later. This is the difference between saying "Did you see a particular good cover that on the newstand now?" and "Do you remember a particular incredibly artistic cover from 9 months ago?" It is precisely, this gap in chronology that points to the NFCC merits of the image in question that I will get to momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the image at issue, I have stated that the current WP:FUR has three important elements: 1.) It is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that it was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the photo. SlimVirgin has noted that he discussed the FUR on May 24, but he has only alluded to points 1 and 3. In all honesty, 2 is the primary reason why the FUR has teeth. An image that propels someone to fame is common. The majority of actors and models have a headshot that has gotten them a critical job or two. Thus, an image credited with getting her a breakthrough role or two is not encyclopedic on that basis alone. SlimVirgin, makes this point and I get it (even though his point is somewhat conflated with an argument against presenting nudity to our readers). Point 3 relates to the encyclopedic nature of the Director's perception of the image. Yet, almost every image that got someone ahead impressed someone who had decision-making authority. However, in this case, for some reason The New York Times seemed to find the fact fit to print. Thus, we have a perception of the mertis of the image noted in the NYT. Of all the images that have gotten someone ahead, only a select few have a direct quote about the decision-maker's thinking in the NYT. I am not an image reviewer. The majority of image reviewers in the past FACs have felt the article should be kept in the article. I do not know if the mere fact that the NYT included the decision makers thinking would have been sufficient to get the image kept based on FUR and WP:NFCC. However, in this case we have a journalist for the Fashion and Style section of the NYT who adds her own description of the image, noting it was "artfully composed". Since she has been writing for the NYT Fashion and Style section since 2011, I am going to assume she has been looking at magazine covers, fashion photo spreads, various pictures of models and assorted print or online photographic campaigns for a few decades. I imagine a writer who writes for the NYT Fashion and Style section has seen more magazine covers than I could shake a stick at. I.e., when someone who writes for the Fashion and Style section of the NYT notes that a photograph of a model was exceptional, she has probably chosen her words carefully and they have significance that needs to be considered. I am also going to assume that the NYT has a somewhat rigorous editorial process and somewhere some people consider what is WP:UNDUE weight for NYT commentary. In fact, it would not surprise me if there was someone who thought about whether it was UNDUE to allow the NYT to both present a direct quote of the directors perception and further praise of the image in the words of its own journalist. Although things likely happen much faster at the NYT than at WP:FAC, I imagine that their content considerations are more serious than ours at FAC. Thus, I presume that when a NYT article quotes a Director that had exceptional opinions of an image and that its own journalist has a perception of an image as exceptional, it has meaning. In this case, although it might be the case that a photo getting someone ahead is common and that a decision-making authority might have a particular opinion about the merits of such an image is common, it is not common for the NYT to present documentation of the fact that the image got someone ahead, a quote regarding the thinking of a decision-maker and further discourse on the merits of an image from a journalist who is an expert on the subject matter. Thus, I think one has to come up with a convincing argument against point 2 above before making an NFCC-based decision against the photo. N.B.: nudity is not an NFCC issue, per se.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overly detailed? I have been paring down the detail. I don't know when the article will hit the mark. Thanks for your commentary. It has helped me to improve the article. I only wish you would remain engaged in the discussion so that I can further improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoriaearle, above you asked: "How did she become a model? Did she show up at an open call? Do we know?". I have been digging for days to find this. I have added the story.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: After almost two months open, there is still substantial ongoing opposition and definitely no consensus for promotion developing. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:21, 6 July 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/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive5&oldid=1136097979"