- 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: WP:BIOG, WP:FASHION, and WP:FILMBIO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: GOCE reviewer Baffle gab1978, GAC reviewer Cirt and PR discussants Cirt, SNUGGUMS, Kiyoweap, and Sigeng.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about,Emily Ratajkowski who is an elite bikini model (has appeared in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) and who is best known as the model from the video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries. She has parlayed her model buzz into sex symbol status and some movie roles.
I am hoping for a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in a little over 17 months from now. An October WP:GAN, a November WP:PR and a December WP:GOCE effort make me feel this article is moving in the proper direction for a WP:FAC nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N. B. I belatedly added this nomination to the WP:FAC page over 3 and a half days after opening the review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this page was viewed 3.2 million times in 2013 and 1.5 million times in 2014 so it is a fairly important page in that regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as GA Reviewer. I also pitched in with some comments at the peer review. The article was high quality at time of GA Review, and has only improved in quality since then. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak oppose - I don't consider YouTube an acceptable source. Although if refs #24, #32, #35 and #41 are replaced with reliable sources and the n.a. fields in File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg are filled, I will officially support. MaRAno FAN 14:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- n.a.'s handled.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Re #41, Although youtube is not generally considered a WP:RS, for facts that a video was posted and remains available on the site despite controversy, pointing to the video itself is almost the best source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Re #35, Sourcing the production of the music video, another video on the making of the video is a great source for the fact stating when the video was shot.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Re #32, Ms. Ratajkowski does not discuss the third video. It seems like her marketing strategy is to ignore it. Thus, the only way to source it is by pointing to youtube.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ms. Ratajkowski also seems to eschew her Frederick's of Hollywood experience, leaving us to again point to youtube.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- MaranoFan basically, the remaining uses of youtube are all cases where the best available source for a fact that educates the reader is youtube. Although not generally a WP:RS, in each of the remaining uses, youtube is the best source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Support :). MaRAno FAN 07:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to prose and sourcing. The prose needs some serious work. It is extremely choppy: Fact 1. Fact 2. Something else slightly tied to Fact 1. It does not flow at all. Other things:
- the lead is quite short
- The article is currently 13823 characters of readable prose. I have just expanded the LEAD by 152 characters to 1221 characters of readable prose with these edits. I don't know how much more is really LEADworthy from the article. Keep in mind that WP:LEADLENGTH says that for an article less than 15,000 characters a 1 to 2 paragraph LEAD is what is expected. These three short paragraphs are about what would be expected for this length article even though it is formatted in three paragraphs rather than two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Modeling/Modelling - both spellings are in the article
- From what I understand British english uses 2 ls and American uses 1 (see this source). Even though the infobox uses the British spelling, I will go with 1 l in the text since she is more American as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did her appearance on the cover of the magazine treats! directly lead to its price increase? If not, this fact does not belong in the article. If so, you need a source - just citing the two covers to show different prices is NOT good enough.
- Karanacs, All we know is that her magazine cover seems to have generated enough buzz for her appearance in videos to be demanded. The chronology is an objective fact. I am not sure I understand your point, but what if we had information regarding the sales of the magazine in which she appeared on the cover? I am not sure I can find this, but I vaguely recall something about how that issue sold like hot cakes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked at the treats! article and noticed that the print run was increased from 5,000 to 10,000 between issues 1 and 2, and not between 3 and 4 as would be necessary to support the claim. Not sure what to say. I guess I will revert to my general lack of understanding of your objection to the objective facts presented.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is WP:SYNTHESIS. You are taking Fact 0 (she appeared on the cover) and then listing Fact 1 (price was X on y date) and Fact 2 (price was Z on A date) to imply that her appearance on the cover is connected to the price increase. Until you have sources that explicitly say there is a connection between her appearance on the cover and the price increase, this needs to be removed from the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not impressed with how many references there are to YouTube videos. I read your explanations above, but they don't satisfy me. If third-party sources do not discuss these events, then they don't need to be in the article. YouTube would be considered a primary source, then, and we should be avoiding those if at all possible.
- Rather than address this generally, I'd be happy to discuss each individual fact that is only supported by YouTube and state whether it belongs in the article if no other source can be found. I think we are only dealing with a handful of facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think an entire paragraph on Blurred Lines the song is warranted, when she was involved solely in the video, not the song itself.
- Are you talking about the short paragraph beginning with "Blurred Lines" went on to become the number 1 song of 2013? It is barely a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of quotes from her about her choices and her beliefs. There is not a lot of analysis by others of what she's done. It makes the article seem lopsided - it is focusing on her perspective of herself. This may be something you cannot overcome yet, because she is so new to the industry, but I think it makes the article incomplete.
- is Fashionista.com a reliable source?
- Is the Styleite blog a reliable source?
- Is MovieWeb a reliable source?
- Twitter is not a reliable source
- I have removed one of the three uses. It is the only source we have for her claim that the cover was non-consensual. Should I remove this content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Personal life section seems more like gossip.
- Two of the five topics are past and present relationships. Are these encyclopedic topics? What about the other three topics?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of that section is encyclopedia worthy. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is fashionmodeldirectory a reliable source?
- Is Stylecaster.com a reliable source?
- Is the worlds best ever a reliable source?
- Is the fashion model directory a reliable source?
Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not believe the image of the magazine cover can be used as fair use in this article. The cover itself is mentioned but is not discussed in detail. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Karanacs, Do we have to find sources on photographic techniques or find sources discussing its use of black-and-white photography. The photo certainly relevant to the bio. I am not sure what you are asking for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the fair use guidelines, magazine covers can't be included just as illustrations for biographies. There would need to be some type of discussion within the article about the cover. Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Karanacs, P.S. I have just made a few responses. It was just to show good faith that I intend to really address your concerns on Tuesday. I am a bit tired and will be doing a lot less cerebral edits the rest of the night.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So far I'm unconvinced that any of those sources are WP:RS. Are they mentioned by other third-party sources? Do they have a good reputation for accuracy? Their about pages don't tell me enough. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- No progress for two weeks so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
