Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mila Kunis/1

Mila Kunis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept RFC has closed and a version has been agreed upon. It appears relatively stable despite some minor edit warring [1]. Not seeing any failings of the GA criteria in the consensus version and none have been brought up below. As a side note it is not usually helpful to open a RFC and a GAR at the same time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Mila Kunis article now contains a lengthy section called "Media publicity" that is simply a fannish and overindulgent laundry list of non-notable, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. For example, it talks about she had the the "honor" of being on the cover of this of that magazine. That fact that an actress, especially one with a movie to promote, appears on the cover of a magazine is a completely normal, everyday occurrence. We don't list every magazine cover Marilyn Monroe appeared on, yet we're gong to list every one Mila Kunis appears on?

Additionally, it is filled the fannish, hagiographic prose about how she "graced" this cover or was "praised" by this magazine. And we certainly don't ahve to include every cable network or magazine's "award": Some have achieved a level of institutional awareness, such as People magazine's or Playmate of the Year, but the majority are nothing but self-promotional vehicles not awarded under any official auspices: vanity awards.

Attempts at trimming this section — not even removing, simply trimming — has been met with an SPA's automatic revert to this fannish version.

An article with such excesses of WP:PUFFERY and in such violation of WP:FANSITE does not fit the criteria of a Good Article.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was the GA reviewer. Personally, I think that Kunis is one of the world's formost sex symbols. WP should document this as objectively as possible by presenting her sex symbol credentials, which includes naming her rankings in notable fora. Although a title such as "Hottest Mila" should be removed, the rest of the first paragraph is entirely encyclopedic in this regard. The Funny or Die paragraph would be borderline puffery if it did not explain her casting in a major role. The 3rd paragraph includes a lot of borderline stuff that needs to be trimmed down. The ad campaign is good. It would be nice to have an accounting of major ad campaigns for most stars. I always ask that they be included in any GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Basically, the section in question has one bad paragraph. A Nylon cover is trivial in this context and should be removed. The women we love segment needs context or removal. I forgot whether this is an annual list or a monthly feature. If the latter it should go. A 25th anniversary cover is a notable cover. I might mention the co-cover girls. Local MC duties are trivial in this context and worth removing. I am on the fence on the Bryan Adams stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated, your taking the time to thoughtfully comment.

I think she's quite beautiful myself, but "one of the world's foremost sex symbols"? That seems a mite subjective. I could think of 20 or 25 other women immediately that would go ahead of her.

That said, I concur with your reasoning; if fact, virtually the same changes you discuss are ones I made in my version that's under discussion at the RfC. You've been generous with your time so far, and if you could look at the RfC and weigh in there as well, that might lend impetus to ending all this quickly and, hopefully, amicably. Thank you again for coming here and quickly. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I deleted much of that over-hyping from fan mags to help retain her GA status. I left those two reports when she did something for charitable causes, since that shows her commitment to help others less fortunate, and makes her appear more human instead of only as a typical sex symbol or ordinary tv/movie star. --Katydidit (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Shows you how enjoyable the debate is on which women are the world's best. (lol) Too bad we can't list more of them as she earns it, because she is definitely one of the Top 10 in raw sexiness and in appearing to be a real, down-to-Earth person with a likeable personality which is rare in Hollywood, IMHO. --Katydidit (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You and I don't decide. The stuff in paragraph 1 of this section makes her one of the foremost. WP is a tertiary resource and these list determine who the foremost are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Who gets to make the final decision on this GA status, and when? Thanks! --Katydidit (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the arbitrary and unilateral removal of the following content:

1. AskMen.com has also lauded Kunis ranking her the second most desirable woman in 2011 and following that up with a number thirteen ranking in 2012.
2. FHM magazine ranked her number 9 on their 2012 Hot 100 list
3. For the October 2010 Elle magazine 25th anniversary special edition, Kunis was one of the women chosen to be featured for their success at a young age. The honor included a photo and video presentation on the magazine's website.
4. GQ magazine named Kunis the Knockout of the Year for 2011
5. Men's Health naming her one of the "100 Hottest Women of All-Time".
6. The Spike Guys' Choice Awards presented her with the 2011 Holy Grail of Hot award.

Although I agree with the rest of the content removal the above need to be discussed. 1-3 I believe are clearly encyclopedic as the first two are fairly standard sex symbol documentation and the third is pretty notable. 4-6 is all debatable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good and detailed points all. I think the phrase "The honor included a photo and video presentation on the magazine's website" violates WP:TONE, and that it's non-notable that if someone appears on the cover that she also appears inside and on the website — that's just normal. However, the initial Elle sentence I certainly think is appropriate, and I believe I left it intact in my version, so we do agree there. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I could support just the first part.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe AskMen.com's list is any widely recognized media touchstone like GQ Man of the Year or People's Sexiest Woman of the Year. The FHM thing, because she's only #9, I'm not wild about, but we're all compromising so, certainly, I'll go along. The GQ "Knockout of the Year" ... is that the same as its Woman of the Year, or just a cute one-time tagline? And yes, given that it's a #1 either way, I'm certainly good with it, though we should clarify that context. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically, there are a bunch of mags and websites that create annual top 100 sexiest lists. I think Maxim, Stuff, FHM and AskMen are all about the same here and we should give as complete an accounting as we can for these lists, not just top placements.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following. You mean you think that for every one of a given year's hundred women in the Maxim list and the however many in '"Stuff, AskMen.etc, that every one of those 100+ women's articles should say they were number 94 in 2010 or number 78 in 2009, etc.? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are 100 chosen by each of those sources and I think biographies should summarize the public record for these lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I can see creating a list article for "Maxim Hot 100" the same way we have articles listing Playboy Playmates and Penthouse Pets. I'm just not sure it's necessary to include in 100 articles a year (minus overlap) that "Susie Smith was #99 on the Maxim 2012 list, #47 on the FHM list, #64 on the AskMen list and did not appear on the Stuff list or the Gear list. In 2011... " Where do we draw the line of notability and undue weight, let alone WP:INDISCRIMINATE? --20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at my reviews, you will see I have reviewed a bunch of sex symbols. Oddly, it is very rare that any woman makes more than 2 or 3 of these list. You might think many women would be in the top 100 of all 5 that you mentioned. So in terms of too many lists, it is not a problem. I think a result like Kate Beckinsale#Modelling_career, encyclopedically documents the extent to which she is known as a sex symbol. I don't think it includes too much or too little. That is about what Kunis should be shooting for in terms of amount of content regarding sex symbol stature. Each woman's case will be different. In terms of Kunis, I think several of the six things noted above should be returned to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything's been removed. But can we not at the very least agree that "Hottest Mila" and "Holy Grail of Hot" aren't real awards?

Also, with all due respect for all the work you as an admin do and all the responsibility you and other admins take on, can you see where it might not sound objective when you say, "I have reviewed [the article of] a bunch of sex symbols?" I don't mean any disrespect when I say perhaps we could consult with a colleague who doesn't regularly address "sex symbols" articles in order to get a disinterested second eye. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at this version from August 24th after Katydidit (talk · contribs) did this removal. I am in agreement that "Hottest Mila" should not be in the article and am not so excited about including "Holy Grail of Hot". If we are talking about the restored version, I would remove the Nylon Cover, and local benefit MC from paragraph 3 and consider some content removal from the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

New section

I am sorry, Tenebrae, but this not the way to go. See this paragraph: "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.". Nymf _hideliho! 06:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nymf, and I'm glad to see your voice join all the rest. No one was edit-warring; there's some disagreement over content, but we've all been gentlemanly about it and using proper protocol like an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I am glad you are working it out like gentlemen. It is so much nicer around here when it is done that way. I have no opinion one way or another regarding the section (though I am not a fan of overzealous — in my opinion, undue/fancruft — listings, such as awards in general). This do seem like a content dispute though, and perhaps the RfC should have run its course first. Nymf _hideliho! 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As a casual observer, I think Tony was right to pass this as a GA. It meets requirements and I can't see any OTT puffery in its current state anyway although I agree in parts its a bit too magazine like; certain quotes and "humanitarian" things often don't really need mentioning but the problems are minor in my opinion and not enough to delist it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to come to any agreement on what content should be included in the Media Publicity section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Who knows how long this process is going to take? It just drags on, and on, and on. No timetable, nobody saying who is going to do the ruling or when. It's a complete mess, the same as finally accepting she is in a serious relationship with her former co-star and numerous reports she has moved into his house; neither fact has been allowed to stand with those inconsistent, picky editors who make one lame excuse after the other in reversions. --Katydidit (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)