- Lead: bounces around a bit. In the first para, it starts with born and raised, then goes to reason for notability (2013), then further career post 2013 - fine. But then the second para goes back to 2012 - why? Then the third para doesn't mention any dates, making it unclear when is meant, though it seems like it might go back even further than 2012 ... I recommend going chronological, but you can pick a different order, as long as there is any obvious order, as is it's confusing.
- The LEAD does not attempt to be chronological. There is an overview. Then there is a modelling paragraph, an acting paragraph and an other personal stuff paragraph. I welcome commentary on working with this structure or clarification on why this structure is no good.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, I would appreciate feedback on the newly organized and expanded LEAD as well as the status of all other issues. I hope to be too busy to respond until Monday or Tuesday after tonight.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Looks better now, the organization by subject is more clear. --
GRuban (
talk) 17:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- "She has now been in two Swimsuit Issues." should explain that this means Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues, as is not obvious, lots of mags have such.
- We Are Your Friends with Zac Efron (her first leading role) - haven't seen the movie, but from the text below, "leading role" is overstatement. It's her first non-bit-part, but from your own statements below ("Although not a cameo, ... a role not requiring significant acting.... not part of the central relationship of the movie") it seems to be a minor role. If you insist on it, I recommend a citation of a critic calling it such.
- She had lots and lots of lines and was in many scenes. Her onscreen role was not minor in this sense. She was clearly the female lead. In terms of contributing to the theme of the movie, her role was that of a muse for the male characters. I'll look for a critic citing it as a leading role.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Is the current citation that I just added adequate?--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Exposure to the nude female figure in photography and art during her formative years prepared Ratajkowski for her eventual nude and semi-nude appearances before the camera.[16] ... Her father's work as a visual artist exposed her to nudity in art.[17] - Repetitive, combine these two.
- Combined.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Good. How about moving the "Among her influences was exposure to the photography of Helmut Newton and Herb Ritts in books" up as well, though not necessarily sticing all into one sentence? --
GRuban (
talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- As a young teen, she experienced pressure from friends, family and society due to her physical maturity and developing sexuality.[18][19] - what kind of pressure? pressure to model? pressure to have sex? surely not from her family?
- Clarified.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Still not enough. "she experienced pressure regarding expressing her sexuality" means what? She was pressured to express it, or to hide it, or to express it in certain ways, or not to express it in other ways, or some of each from different people? If we're writing something, that implies it's somehow different from what 90% of adolescents experience. What, exactly? --
GRuban (
talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I have tried to clarify further. The sources are right there. If this current phrasing is insufficient, please consider making a suggestion.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Good now; you finally explained how she was pressured. --
GRuban (
talk) 17:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- After two nondescript movie roles, Ratajkowski appeared as Gibby's girlfriend Tasha in two third-season episodes of Nickelodeon's iCarly. Despite her previous minor film roles, she described her iCarly role as "my first and only acting job".[2] - when was this? when were the minor roles? I realize they're there in the tables, but to me, at least, it's obviously missing from the text as well
- Her manager discouraged her from pursuing many acting engagements until she was in a position to be more selective.[8][22] - she had a manager after two minor roles and two cable appearances? Really? Or was this her modeling manager?
- Recall she did a lot of stage work in San Diego so she had some sort of track record regarding her acting potential. I have revised the text.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- She had become a disillusioned student after her brief experience in the School of the Arts and Architecture at UCLA. - in what way disillusioned?
- Clarified.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- "both disappointed in the academic and social environment" Sorry, still not enough. Disappointed how? Were the academics not rigorous? Too strict? Was there too little socializing? Too much? Did she not have friends? Not have classes she liked? What? Also "was both disappointed" is clumsy phrasing. --
GRuban (
talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I am going to look at this again, but keep in mind we are presenting what she has put on the public record as her reason. Also these were her stated reasons while she was an aspiring actress in Hollywood. I will look at this again though.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- It is hard for me to say more about the academic issue. She said "I went in for the art department, which was really small, and I thought it'd be a school within a big school. But I didn't really find that. I also find fine art education really arbitrary. Some of the conceptual stuff they were pushing I didn't really agree with." Not a school within a big school is ambiguous and could mean she thought it would operate independently as its own school within a big school or operate as a school more in synch with the big school. Furthermore, saying she found the things arbitrary and in conflict with her artistic concepts is also somewhat ambiguous. In terms of the social issue, she said "When people are like – 'College! Oh my God! Ultimate freedom!' -- I didn't feel that way. My roommates were loving hitting the town, but I wasn't as psyched about going to the frats." I could say she did not feel college was the Ultimate freedom that it was cracked up to be and that she did not like the frat party as a social option. What do you suggest.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- "She found the UCLA fine art education arbitrary and in conflict with her artistic concepts, and didn't enjoy socializing with fellow students." --
GRuban (
talk) 17:57, 17 March 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", Ratajkowski considers herself to have the potential to break barriers for models -1: need an inline ref directly after the quote; 2: explain the difference (presumably that runway models are traditionally taller and flat or angular?)
- On May 4, 2015, she attended the Met Gala, and made news by wearing a dress from Topshop - strike this whole sentence, we are not a gossip mag, and don't note that she sometimes goes to see a show and wears clothes when she does so. This much can be assumed.
- Her sex appeal remained high, as evidenced by - Yeek. Arguably the whole article is evidence of her sex appeal, not a specific item. Remove these words.
- On July 31, 2014, Ratajkowski announced that she had been cast in her first leading role - why does it matter when she announced it, now that it's happened already? Remove.
- Similarly "In March 2015, Ratajkowski was announced as part of the cast for The Spoils Before Dying." and " (September 3 release announced on September 1)".
- I do not understand the parenthetical above, but I have removed the announcement.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The parenthetical is from your text, and isn't that clear there either. I recommend removing it. --
GRuban (
talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- While you're here, move these two paras down to the rest of the section about the film; one film shouldn't be split among two sections
- her hometown movie critic Anders Wright of The San Diego Union-Tribune remained silent on her role. - again, strike. Someone not writing about her is not news.
- It may not be news, but it is critical commentary. Saying that a person has a significant role that was not worth critiquing is actually a critique on the role.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, I need a direct response to this.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- And note I am a huge fan of this actress, and am just attempting to summarize the secondary sources that people might rely on to enterpret her performance.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- No, sorry, I disagree. Someone not mentioning her is not critical commentary about her. As I write below, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and the Pope also did not mention her role. --
GRuban (
talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Obama, Putin, and the Pope are not relevant here. I have listed only film critics notable enough to have articles on WP. From that subset of critics, I have listed only those who wrote critical commentary included at either
Metacritic or
Rotten Tomatoes that attempts to describe the notable elements of the films in which she had a significant role. You are talking about people (Obama, Putin, and the Pope) who have no professional expertise in film criticism, and who have not written about the films in which she had a critical role. Of course people who write nothing about film and did not attempt to dissect films in which she had a significant role would not write about her. What is notable is that she is described as being the lead in the film and people who are expert in film criticism and who critically reviewed the film in which she had a significant role made no comment on her performance. Please get on point and explain why when an expert in your field who is evaluating the performances in a work you played a major role in says nothing about you what that means to the reader. The article as it stands summarizes what every critic who has an article on WP (plus her hometown critic), is included in
Metacritic or
Rotten Tomatoes and reviewed the film said or didn't say about her performance.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Those comments are for her We Are Your Friends role. For less prominent roles, I expanded the list of critics to those without WP articles to round out the article as necessary.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- No, sorry, I'm going to hold the line here. If a critic did not mention her, it does not help our article to write "critic did not mention her". Feel free to get a
WP:3O or open a
WP:RFC or whatever, but I am quite sure about this. --
GRuban (
talk) 00:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- O.K., I have trimmed the WAYF paragraph from 2303 to 1485 characters, which is over 35% trim. An
WP:RFC is a 30 day process, so I will get an opinion at
WP:BLPN, which can be resolved much more quickly.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 01:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Your opinion was supported at BLPN.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks! --
GRuban (
talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Is the offending paragraph short enough now? I don't want to be arbitrary in shortening the list of reviewers. Right now we have all Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes critics who had WP bios last summer who commented on Ratajkowski in WAYF. I could shorten the list to those with WP bios whose reviews were published in media outlets that had WP articles. That would cut down a couple of critics.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban I have attempted to address all of your concerns. Aside from this query, I believe we have satisfied your expectations. Can you clarify your perception of the progress? Do you have remaining concerns?--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- We Are Your Friends performance garnered her mixed reviews - this whole paragraph is at least twice (probably four times) as long and detailed as it should be. As clearly stated, this is a minor role, so presumably will not be the high point of her career. Pick a few representative/influential reviews, summarize the rest.
- I think I kind of punted and summarized each notable author who was at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Some of the above debate may sort itself out as I look at trimming this down. Let me see. I am not sure I can cut it by more than a third, but I'll have a look.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Probably the worst offender from that paragraph is this sentence: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Brian Viner of Daily Mail and both Peter Bradshaw and Mark Kermode of The Guardian were also silent on Ratajkowski's performance.[124][135][136][137] We might as well write that Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and the Pope also didn't mention it.
--
GRuban (
talk) 20:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Most of these are good now, with a few minor exceptions I trust we'll work out. --
GRuban (
talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, I saw you struck your support with the hope that it was temporary. I have tried to address the issue in which you concurred with SV. If I am not there yet, give me more direction. I have another 48 hours where I can spend time on the article.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Not there yet, I'm afraid, though I appreciate the effort. I'm sorry that you only have 48 hours, as I'm not sure it'll be enough (with the new text you're adding, you're possibly resolving some issues, but adding others, among them grammar/style), but let's try.
- I just mean Friday to Monday I will again not be a useful editor. Next week Tuesday through Thursday I will be available again. I am just saying that I need your attention Tuesday through Thursday.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The sentence "A YouTube video about the making of the "Love Somebody" video shows that it was shot on January 16, 2013." - can be compressed into "shot on Jan 16..." and stuck onto the previous sentence, it's just a source.
- The "Ratajkowski said she felt the attention given to the nudity..." paragraph is ER reacting to public reaction. Move it after the next 2 paragraphs which are about the public reaction.
- Throughout you're mixing present tense (assert, feel, point) with past (was controversial, said). Pick one; I think past is better.
-
MOS:TENSE is confusing because certain things are suppose to be present tense and others are suppose to be past tense. I think a film is a past event, but reviews about a film are current opinions to be written in the present. However, I believe a song is an ongoing present tense subject. I am not averse to being corrected on my changes.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- ""Blurred Lines" was controversial because some feel it promotes a man's freedom to vanquish women at will, while others assert it promotes female power and freedom in sexual congress. " - er ... I'm pretty sure the people who thought it was sexist greatly outnumber, and feel stronger about it, than those who asserted it promoted female power; and many of the apologists were directly involved with the video. The CBC article by Andrea Warner was quite explicit: "This isn’t satire, post-post irony or freedom of speech. This is war." We should be clear this is not balanced.
- This is a tough thing to balance. This is the biography and not the BL article. I am trying not to place
WP:UNDUE weight on the controversy. Basically, I have tried to present enough information for the readers to understand both sides of the four facets of the controversy that I mention in the newly expanded LEAD. I will stick a bit more her about convictions, but this article is not really the place for much more detail in that regard is it?--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I have added the CBC article and the fact that the song was widely banned at Universities. This is not the BL article, so I don't know how much more belongs in her bio. I think any more detail belongs in the BL article directly.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 13:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see anything here questioning ER's feminism; I gave 2 links below that do so, and I think more can be found from searching with the other 2 search engine links I gave. It's all right for this to be less than ER's own statements, and those supporting her, as the ones questioning her feminism seem to be in the minority, but they do exist and should be mentioned.
- I think it is now clear why her femism is questioned. I have even added a sentence in the LEAD summarizing the controversy. Oddly, I don't find others stating the controversy, but rather mostly Ratajkowski saying others say there is a controversy. Regardless, I have summarized the
WP:RS on this issue.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- "she was featured by the Los Angeles-based jewelry designer as the face of her Spring 2016 campaign wearing body chains, rings, bracelets, pendants, and chokers" ... er, yes, but that's sort of avoiding the main issue, which is that she was featured wearing basically ONLY body chains, rings, bracelets, pendants, and chokers. That's why the campaign drew the attention it did from the sources, as I wrote, the sources make a big deal of her almost complete nudity. Models wearing rings is no big deal. Models wearing solely rings is. --
GRuban (
talk) 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- "In Complex, She also said" - lower case S
- The BL plagiarism controversy doesn't seem to bear on ER much; she's not being accused of plagiarism, she just danced. (This is in contrast to the accusation of sexism, her appearance in the video is an important part of that.)
- That paragraph is an attempt to describe why a single music video could launch a career. It gives three points 1.) The song was popular around the world in 2013, 2.) It was popular in her home country for an unusually long time in 2013, 3.)After months of popularity as evidenced in the music charts, the song remained prominent for a much longer time due to news coverage. She was not involved in the plaguarism issue, but it probably contributed greatly to her popularity by keeping the song in people's minds until she could escalate her acting career and modelling careers to higher levels.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I still wouldn't put it in myself, but can accept it. --
GRuban (
talk) 21:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, I have attempted to address all of your latest concerns. Further feedback is welcome. I don't expect to do much more editing for the next 12 hours as I prepare to shoot the
2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game here in Chicago tonight, but I will be back online tonight for 24 hours before 4 hard days of driving. So if you can leave me any further concerns by tonight, I will attempt to address them tomorrow.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, can I request your feedback on other potential images from
this 2015 video using the following points of the video that have potential images 1:02-1:03; 1:34-1:36; and 2:02-2:04? P.S. I am on my backup computer right now and am not able to do high quality screen caps until my primary comes back. If you find any of those points worth capturing you could add them to the article.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Unfortunately, that video isn't Creative Commons licensed. YouTube hides the license under the SHOW MORE link in the middle of the page. That video is under "Standard YouTube License", which means we can't reuse it. The two that I found that are under "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dBRIBCBI40 and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1B4pFMnLZY. (There are a few other YouTube videos of her marked Creative Commons Attribution, for example the Hollywood Daily ones, but I frankly doubt their ownership of the images they display. The LOVE magazine ones do seem actually owned by the magazine.) Strangely enough, it's not the easiest thing to find freely licensed pictures of someone who normally receives lots of money for having pictures taken of them. --
GRuban (
talk) 01:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, since you are the discussant in this review that has paid the most attention to the content I was hoping you might have an opinion on whether I should mention her latest print campaign that is getting major press. Do we want to include ad campaigns that get a lot of press? See
Esquire,
Austrailian Elle,
In Style,
MSN,
The Sun,
New.com.au, and
[2]. I am contemplating the propriety of adding this campaign to her article. What do you think?--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'd say it's worth a sentence, due to, as you write, the extensive coverage it's gotten, but not more than that - I haven't read all the sources, but the first few seem to all be saying the same things: "she's doing an ad campaign, look, mostly naked photos!", which is not really that different from the rest of her oeuvre. So it would be one more representative example of her work; since we don't have countless numbers of such examples yet, it is worth spending one sentence on it. The term "propriety", though, doesn't really apply to this article, which is something I think both Emily Ratajkowski herself and SarahSV would agree on. --
GRuban (
talk) 14:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- On a separate note, I've read SarahSVs comments, and agree with a number of them, especially her point 3. A noticeable fraction of the article is Ratajkowski defending herself against claims that Blurred Lines is inherently sexist... but we don't present those claims, just her defense. That's not balanced. Sarah's points 2 and 5 can both be satisfied, at least partly, by removing the parts that depend on the gossip papers (for example: "Emily Ratajkowski displays her cleavage ... " ahem). I think she's gotten enough coverage from non-gossip sources that we can live without that. I'm afraid there is no way to fulfill "avoid presenting women as "objects of heterosexual male appreciation."", since that's a noticeable fraction of Ratajkowski's career, but Sarah's other points have points, so to speak. --
GRuban (
talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I welcome advice and assistance in contextualizing the sexist claims regarding the video. I am on a short clock for until Monday night or Tuesday. I will attempt to respond as soon as I can but would welcome assistance in presenting the controversy in proper balance.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, I am awaiting feedback above. However, I also need your opinion on
this edit.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I think you addressed my comments well. Here are a few minor issues that I'm sure you'll get to. I would like to read what SarahSV has to say about the latest version, though, as at least once she has been able to change my mind about approving. I won't necessarily agree with her (I already disagree with her on some points: hair and eye color on a model are fine; that someone's parents weren't married is unusual enough to be worth a line; ) but her arguments are always well written and sure to be interesting. The IP's edit removing the feminist controversy from the lead is, strangely enough, probably good. I think we should probably remove that she describes herself as a feminist from the lead altogether, as it's controversial, as SarahSV writes, and yet, we could only find one good source contesting it, so it's giving that one source too much weight to put it in the lead. Leave the bit about her being an activist in the lead, and keep the "feminist" controversy in the activism section. This might change if Sarah can find more sources contesting ER's feminism.
- I have taken another stab at discussing being a feminist in the
WP:LEAD. Let me know what you think.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I was looking for more reliable sources about ER's feminism being questioned, and I found one; sort of. The source is reliable, the BBC, though I'm not at all sure that Sarah will want to be associated with the questioner, one
Piers Morgan.
[3]. There is already a section on the Kardashian photo that this should go in. That at least makes 2 questioning ER's feminism; without at least two, it's
wp:undue weight to mention it in the lead. Please feel free to find even better sources if you like (you, in this case, being plural, Tony or Sarah or whoever is interested). --
GRuban (
talk) 00:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I think you are saying that we established a controversy about her feminism. A true controversy is something that should be in the LEAD. We have one critic saying she may be an opportunist and another saying she is a pseudo feminist, while a third says she is truly a feminist. Meanwhile her actions are being covered widely as a statement of some kind related to the female body. The lead says "Ratajkowski considers herself a feminist. Some support this claim, while others have questioned and challenged her on it." We present a supporter, a challenger and a questioner in the current version of the article. I think the current version of the lead hits it on the head in terms of summarizing the body, but feel free to suggest a specific revision.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Sarah found an even better source that questions ER's feminism (it was just written yesterday, so I won't kick myself for not finding it when I looked): Charlotte Gill,
"Kim Kardashian and Emily Ratajkowski are no feminists", The Independent, 1 April 2016. It discusses the Kardashian photo situation without being Piers Morgan (which is a noticeable plus). I think it would work fine in that section. In direct response to your paragraph, though, I'm not at all sure that "a true controversy is something that should be in the lead"; just because something is controversial doesn't necessarily mean it's important. Jimbo Wales's birth date is controversial, but surely doesn't make that much of an impact on his life. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article and I am not convinced the controversy about ER's feminism is one of them. From reading the article, she's primarily a model, secondarily an actress, her activism is tertiary, and this "is she a real feminist" controversy is probably a part of her being an activist, and not the most important part. --
GRuban (
talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, Actually, I would appreciate your advice on
the latest stance by
SlimVirgin. I do not understand her comment that I am not making progress. If you can express a substantive actionable issue for me to address, I welcome that. I understand that the article could be improved by fresh eyes, but I can't do that myself. I have requested a source review at
WT:FAC. Let me know what you think.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- There are multiple issues in that diff link. The "naked photo" issue, I am conflicted on, I think I somewhat agree with Sarah, but not enough to oppose over, at least partly because the "it's a non-free image" that she is technically objecting about isn't really her main objection, which is that we would be objectifying women by displaying that photo, free or not. The "no progress is being made" issue is also twofold - you have made lots of progress on adding criticism of Blurred Lines and ER's claim to feminism, but Sarah's main objection there is about the "grammar, punctuation, repetition and flow", which, I am afraid, I can't help directly with very much. When I find a specific issue I point it out, but when I read a sentence that seems awkward, I can't always explain how to make it better. (That's one of the reasons I don't do much in FAs!) You could try and just rewrite the sentences that Sarah points out, all of them, then, after demonstrating that you are actively trying to work with her on this, ask her if that made them better. --
GRuban (
talk) 16:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- You also need to get with the times. It is not the case that nude photography=objectification of women. Ratajkowski is proud of that photo as the photo that propelled her career. She is not out there suing anyone about it. She also exhibits an ongoing pride in publishing nude photos of herself with
Time yesterday publishing an article on her nude postings noting her opinion that nudity does not equal trashy. Have you been following the recent additions to the article?--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- As I wrote, I'm not going to oppose over this. It's just that I can see both sides, and think that Sarah has a noticeable point. Yes, I understand Ratajkowski doesn't see it as derogatory to her; but there are plenty of women readers who will look at it and see it as derogatory to them. As women. Justly or not, that's what they will see. They won't look at what the naked woman on the cover of the men's magazine thinks, they will merely look at the fact she is there, naked, on the cover of the men's magazine, there in our Featured Article. There was
a somewhat similar issue recently at TFA, in fact, a conflict about putting
Hitler Diaries as
Wikipedia:Today's featured article on
April Fool's Day. The authors of the article said that it wasn't meant to offend anyone by implying that we should treat Hitler as a funny joke.
Yet that is how it would have been received. Justly or not. Of course this isn't to the same scale, which is why I'm not going to oppose over it, but it is in the same vein. Again, I can also see the other side, so I'm not going to oppose over this, so if you want to argue with me about it, you may, but you'll be wasting your energies that would be more useful on something I will oppose over, or someone who will oppose over it. --
GRuban (
talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, Well, there are two sides to every story. There are people offended that WP has maps recognizing certain boundaries of the
Palestine (region). WP should not remove such maps. The image serves a clear purpose and has passed image review whether SV wishes to ignore that purpose or not. I am not going to look at this article much again until next Tuesday. I may look at some of the prose, but I am hoping that the newly involved editor will to a copyedit in the mean time. I concede that the article may not pass at TFA, but let me try to get it through FAC first.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Activism section - "Ratajkowski, is outspoken on her interest in going beyond" - remove comma, and what does "outspoken on her interest" mean? Can those half-dozen words be removed and just say what she supports? --
GRuban (
talk) 13:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- But the grammar is still a problem and the sentence doesn't really mean anything: "Ratajkowski is outspoken on her interest in using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality."
[4] Outspoken about an interest in the implications of speaking out?
- I think you should ask that the nomination be archived. Better to give yourself some distance (i.e. don't read it for a while), then come back with fresh eyes, and when you've finished the first round of improvements, nominate it for peer review.
SarahSV
(talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
SlimVirgin, I am still making progress, have more supports than opposes, and getting other interested editors involved. I am up against a time constraint in regards to my pursuit of a 25th birthday
WP:TFA. I will continue to respond as time allows.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Tony, I think you should not nominate this for the main page for her 25th (or any other) birthday. That would come across as a little personal and strange, and it again makes the article appear promotional.
SarahSV
(talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
SlimVirgin, That is incredibly non-sequitur.
WP:TFA values articles on round number anniversaries, birthdays. Since when is nominating an article based on a birthday personal, strange or promotional. I have done so in the past, most recently for
Tommy Amaker's 50th birthday. The only reason it was personal is that I am a
University of Michigan alum and he is a former
Michigan Wolverines men's basketball coach. There is nothing wrong with that type of personal connection. I am a fan of Michigan basketball as I am a fan of Ms. Ratajkowski. There is nothing promotional about it. How is it any different for me to nominate Ratajkowski for her 25th birthday than to have nominated Amaker for his 50th?--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'm afraid I agree with Tony here; there is nothing wrong with trying to feature an article on the subject's birthday. --
GRuban (
talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban and
SlimVirgin, I am experimenting with a modelling coverography (like a discography or filmography) at
Chiara_Ferragni#Modelling_covers. Should I add something like that to
Emily Ratajkowski. I have opened a discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#Coverographies.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- How large will it turn out to be? We don't want to take up most of the already pretty large article with a list. --
GRuban (
talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I think it will be long eventually, but that is good. It is like a discography or filmography. Almost all successful performers have separate articles for theirs when they become long.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Meh. I somehow think it takes less time to pose for a cover than to write a book or record a disc or have a non-bit role in a film. In fact, I think it takes a comparable amount of time to, say, writing a single article for a journalist; in articles about journalists, we do list a few of their most notable articles, but we don't list every single one they ever wrote. Similarly, I think we probably want to list a few of the most notable covers, but not every single one. I would think it would give more ammunition to the people saying that there is unnecessary detail. But I won't necessarily oppose over it, we'd have to see what it looks like. --
GRuban (
talk) 14:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- You may be right. I had hoped for some input at
WT:FASHION. I can mock up something for EmRata next week. I am just on an hour break and will not have much time until Monday night or Tuesday to look at things. I have a source review request in and will take a look at sources next week as time permits.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- OK, looking over the article and comparing to Sarah's well organized and legitimate objections.
- 1, the main one, well-written prose, as I wrote, I am not perfect at, where I can find specific tweaks I'll present them, and you've been good at fixing them, so I assume you will keep doing this. No objection from me.
- 2, verifiable against high quality sources, Sarah has a point. You removed some, but still have several lines sourced to The Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, and Coed, which are tabloids and gossip mags. Replace them with better sources (for example, here are some better sources for ER supporting Sanders
Marie Claire women's/fashion mag;
Washington Examiner, political mag;
Huffington Post, political online; there are others) or if you can't, remove the lines. There is plenty of content sourced by reliable sources, that we can afford to lose a few lines that can only be sourced to tabloids.
- 3, neutrality meaning documenting criticism of Blurred Lines and ER's feminism, this was the main one that I brought up, and you've been very responsive. No objection left.
- 4, non-free images: as I wrote, that seems a cover for the real objection, which is that the image may be seen as offensive to some readers, and while I personally agree with Sarah, I can see your view enough that I won't oppose over it.
- 5, unnecessary detail, you've been fairly responsive to requests to remove irrelevant content, the content that is left I see as an extension of #2 - removing the lines that can only be sourced to low quality sources will leave the ones that higher quality sources write about, which is a fair argument that they could be necessary.
- So essentially we're down to Sarah's point #2. If you remove the low quality sources, and where necessary removing the content that can only be sourced to them, and will keep being responsive to what little individual issues can be found, I will support. --
GRuban (
talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
GRuban, Do I have you back on board?--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- You got most of it. I'd recommend still removing
- The Daily Something (tabloid) article "‘Blurred Lines’ hottie is feeling the Bern" (I think I give better sources for her Sanders support somewhere around here)
- "She got the part through a New York City "cattle call" audition and a subsequent Los Angeles reading with Affleck and Fincher.[79] Fincher was seeking an actress who could bring a divisive element to the film." - those seem too much detail. So she got a small part through an audition and a reading, that's pretty much how actresses get parts; the "divisive element" is a bit vague. Either specify what it means or remove it ... but only specify it if it is really important, and not just any attractive actress would have done ... which seems unlikely.
- "Gill ... admits she is in the minority, but felt " - this is one tense mix I won't accept. Either both present or both past.
- same sentence "...that the letter was trite and boring" - the article does not say trite, it says rambling and dull. I can accept boring as a synonym to dull, but can't see trite as a synonym of either that or rambling. I think you should just say rambling and dull, two words, especially when specifically attributed to Gill, are not plagiarism.
-
- I don't think so. Trite means "cliche", "overused", "banal",
[5] while "pass the violin" means "melodramatic", "overemotional", "exaggerated"; not really the same thing. Arguably "pass the violin" really means "I don't like her, so want to write a petty personal attack", but we can't write that. Gad what a mean article. IMHO, the important lines in Gill's article aren't the criticisms of ER's partial autobiography, as much as lines like: "she wants to fight against the objectification and oppression of women’s bodies, yet she happily profits from her ability to titillate men... endorsed art that demeans and dehumanises femkind..." etc. ("Femkind"? Yes, femkind. When you write for the Independent you get to make up words.) --
GRuban (
talk) 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- but honestly that's nitpicking. I'll assume you'll either do those or present strong reasons why not, assuming you do, I can support. --
GRuban (
talk) 02:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
Sarah commenting on my comments based on her comments... we must go deeper...
|
- Hang on,
GRuban, I object to your comment that my opposition to the non-free image is "a cover for the real objection, which is that the image may be seen as offensive to some readers." It isn't a cover for anything, and certainly not that it might seem offensive to some readers, a point I haven't raised at all.
- My objection to the image is that it is a non-free, professional image of a living person, and that the policy is being ignored because it's an image of a naked woman. Its use here is sexist and gratuitous, both directly but also indirectly because the usual objections to non-free in BLPs have been magically suspended for it. The use of the image (along with other factors) makes this appear to be an article written by men for men, and this is exactly the sort of thing we're supposed to look out for on Wikipedia.
- I've had several FAs promoted and I've had to remove non-free images that I felt were important. I've reviewed around 120 FACs, including several image reviews, and I've watched hundreds more, so I know that the image policies are strictly applied at FAC.
- No convincing argument has been made that the image satisfies: "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." See
WP:FACR and
WP:NFCC.
SarahSV
(talk) 17:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
SlimVirgin, this seems to be more
WP:POV arguing. How are you absolutely certain that
Masem here and Masem &
Elcobbola in FAC2 took one look at the image and said "We absolutely must keep this naked hottie for all to see." rather than considered
WP:NFCC. I too am an experienced FAC nominator. I am not as sure as you are that the first thing the image reviewers look for is a way to get hot nude images on WP. I can't tell you how many images I have had to remove from articles for promotion. At FAC
Cloud Gate,
Crown Fountain and at GAC
Joanne Gair have had so many helpful images removed it still hurts. Every time I look at Gair's article I wonder why I was forced to choose between the
Eat 'Em and Smile cover and the
Kaleidoscope cover.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- (Edit conflict, this was responding to
SarahSV two paragraphs above): In case I was not clear, this is a list of my objections, even though they were based on your excellent list; I'm not claiming that I'm strictly restating your objections here, or that answering my objections will necessarily satisfy yours. Obviously my writing that this seems like a cover is not simply restating your view, it's my opinion of it; you don't just say "it's non-free use" and stop there, every time you say "it's non-free use and it's sexist". And your writing "it's sexist" is the same as "offensive to some readers", specifically because we know for a fact that at least one rather important person doesn't think it's sexist, namely Ratajkowski. She feels quite strongly that her right to pose sexily is feminist, in fact; and at least in the reliable sources we have found for this article she's gotten more support for saying that than she has gotten criticism. So we can't claim "it's sexist" as some sort of absolute fact as "it's black and white" or "it's a magazine cover" or "she's naked", it is an opinion; "it's sexist" is only going to be considered true by some readers. And as to the NFCC point as such, well, Tony responds that it is a vital artistic work; I'm not that up on the distinction there, so have to leave any objection to those who are. I similarly won't be backing the image as vital to the article either. Anyway, that's my explanation for why I'm not objecting based on it. What's your point? That I should be objecting based on this? Well, while I respect you highly, we are different people. Or is it that you think that I object to your objection? I don't, and in fact agree that the image will be perceived as sexist by a large fraction of viewers. It's just that many of those readers who will think the image is sexist will, as you brought up in point 3, consider most of Ratajkowski's career to be sexist, and will object to us featuring her article at all, not just this image in it. After all, this image is, basically, what she does. So while I personally would prefer we feature the article and not the image, and therefore offend fewer readers, I am not going to oppose promotion just on that splitting of hairs. You may, of course, and I don't see your objection here as invalid, just not strong enough for me, personally, to back to the extent of opposing promoting the article over. OK? --
GRuban (
talk) 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Saying it's sexist is not the same (not the same at all) as saying it might be offensive to some readers. We wouldn't object to a racist article just because some readers might be offended.
- I don't want to insult anyone, but I'm experiencing two men (particularly Tony) explain to me what feminism and sexism are. I see an image review from someone involved in Gamergate. And I see an article about a woman that was clearly written by a man for men. So this is a very typical issue in terms of Wikipedia's sexism, a problem that has been noticed by many mainstream sources, not only by me.
- That's over and above that the article is poorly written, a point noted in all the FACs (writing from memory). Good writing isn't something that is tacked on at the end, something a copy editor can quickly offer. Writing reflects the way the writer structures their thoughts.
- A good writer would find words to deal (briefly) with the sexism allegations against the subject, and would find a way to write this article so that it didn't reflect the sexism of many of the sources. That's the kind of high-quality, disinterested writing I hope Tony can find for this piece, either by doing it himself or by finding someone to help. But I think he needs space to think about it. Trying to achieve it while it's at FAC won't work.
SarahSV
(talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Ouch. Yes, that did hurt; thanks for saying it wasn't intended to. If it seemed like I was trying to explain to you feminism or sexism are, I apologize; that was not my intent. But will you agree that Ratajkowski does go to some lengths to explain what they are? And that she disagrees that the picture is sexist? And that she is backed in her opinion on that by lots of sources, cited in the article? Again, I more agree with your opinion, if I am allowed to call it an opinion. But it does seem that your view is that what you are saying is fact, while what she is saying is mere opinion. --
GRuban (
talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for the apology. I'm not sure what you mean about R's view of the picture. I feel as though I'm having to argue that the grass is green, and this is another common experience for women on Wikipedia. I can't keep doing it, so this may have to be my last comment on this point.
- Looking at it in terms of policy: there is a mainstream opinion among high-quality sources that the video is misogynist, as are the lyrics. The article must reflect the mainstream view, per
WP:DUE. The article can include R's view and other minority views in proportion, but it ought not to present the minority view as a majority one, or place the minority view in WP's voice.
SarahSV
(talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- OK, I agree with that second paragraph, but don't see how it leads to objection. Does that bear in any way on the image in our article? Because I don't see how. Or is your objection that the article still doesn't reflect that mainstream view of BL? Well, then, we're veering off topic ... but I guess we can do that. I don't think that the article does represent the mainstream view as a minority, I do think the article has been improved to the point that it clearly states that BL was criticized more than supported by the world, but it was supported by ER. "Over 20 University student unions banned or condemned the song", that's pretty clear the world objected to it. The fact that it gives most space to ER's views - well, they're her views, the article isn't about BL, it's about her, so as long as it makes clear that these are her views, not the majority opinion, that's perfectly appropriate. It's like it lets her say that she was pressured growing up without giving equal time to her peers and parents, though she is one and they are many; or that she didn't like her college, even though, no doubt, the majority opinion is that it's a fine college; surely we won't be insisting that every time she gives an opinion, the world's opinion be automatically given more space than hers? Again, this is the space for my objections. I don't object due to this. --
GRuban (
talk) 20:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I don't write much about controversial topics. I am not sure what proper presentation is for controversial topics. I have presented about equal weight on both sides of the argument of whether the song is sexist. However, I have also presented equal time to both sides of the debate of whether Ratajkowski has a feminist message. I think far more support her arguments than oppose. I think presenting equal time to both sides is the fairest.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
|
|