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) 22:44, 26 April 2016 [1].

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying

This article is about American model and actress Emily Ratajkowski. I hope to get this promoted in time for consideration at WP:TFA on her 25th birthday (June 7). This article has had a recent WP:GOCE, which may address some of the issue related to tone, promotional issues, and neutrality. The article is greatly changed since the last FAC closed last week.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt[edit]


Comments from TrueHeartSusie3[edit]

Length and excessive detail — Ratajkowski has been notable for less than four years, yet the article is longer than the articles on Philip Seymour Hoffman (whose career spanned over two decades) and Emma Thompson (who has had an even longer career), just to give two examples. When reading the article, it often seems like what's being said could've been expressed in a lot fewer words, and that the editors have been somewhat wary of synthesizing. For example, you don't need to quote 11 different critics when writing about the reception of her performance in We Are Your Friends; or to have three sentences about her heritage; or to have an entire sub-section of seven paragraphs on a music video. A lot of the details in the article don't seem very noteworthy, e.g. in which cities she promoted We Are Your Friends, or all the magazines she was featured in during that time, or that she's hosted a VIP party.
TrueHeartSusie3, I forgot to ask you what you think of this. The 11 critics are the complete set of critics that reviewed WAYF at either Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes who have WP biographies. I chose to use all 11 rather than cherry pick. Is that O.K.?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I could do is reduce the number of critics by only including those who have WP biographies and whose reviews were in works that have WP pages. By my count this would reduce the number of critics from 13 to 8. I don't know where 11 came from. I think I will do this just to shorten that paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. My counts are off. In the text, I did not note that Nell Minow was on Beliefnet, Christopher Gray was on Slant Magazine, Glenn Kenny was on redirect RogerEbert.com. Thus, only James Berardinelli who was in Reelviews.net, Christy Lemire was on her own blog, would be removed. We would end up with 10 or 11 reviewers and we would lose the Lemire article which is one of the few that was actually inciteful about her role. Do you think I should cut out Lemire, Berardinelli and possibly Kenny?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually added the media outlet for Minow and Gray. Kenny too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis — that's the answer. Take a look at other actor FAs for examples. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Are you aware that Emma Thompson is 34770 characters (5729 words) "readable prose" and Philip Seymour Hoffman is 37754 characters (6210 words), while this article is 24671 characters (3939 words). Thompson is 41% longer in terms of characters and Hoffman is 53% longer. Good and featured articles about Academy Award winning actors and actresses will have different content than those of less accomplished actors who get press for other reasons. Keep in mind that part of the length is due to the fact that we are accounting for two careers for Ratajkowski who is both an actress and a model. This article has had a recent copyedit by WP:GOCE-member Twofingered Typist. I may have hampered him when he started making edits eliminating supporting WP:ICs and questioning whether he should be removing content in that way. Note I was alarmed when I realized that his edits would require these edits to restore WP:ICs. I am not sure if more content would have been removed if I had not voiced my concerns over the early content removal. Twofingered Typist can tell you if he would have preferred to remove more content. I am not averse to content being removed if it remains an article with WP:V. If he feels he was hampered, I would welcome a further copyedit in which content remains WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twofingered Typist, could you please comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remain convinced that there is excessive detail around the topic of the video but I am unable to attempt another edit at this time. Yes, her video appearance is probably 90% of the reason behind her notoriety, but the article is about her NOT the video.I suggested that the table of magazine covers be removed - I checked several more famous models' pages and they do not contain such a table. A mention of two or three of the most important mags would suffice. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that no models have a magazine cover listing, but there are also no articles regarding women who are primarily notable for being models at WP:FA. The closest we have to women notable for being models are Marilyn Monroe and Deepika Padukone. It is hard to say what type of detail would bring a woman notable for modeling to WP:FA level recognition. I am more of a content gatherer than a copyeditor. So I will leave it to others to say what a good copy edit would entail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I was wrong about the prose word count, it's still far too long for someone with as short a career. I'm very confused about your concern on reducing inline citations — verifiability is extremely important for a WP article, I'm definitely not suggesting you should cut on those. What I mean is that in order to improve the article, you need to cut unnecessary details and synthesize. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I did not mean to confuse you. If you look at the April 15 portion of the GOCE copyedit, you will see the edits that chopped content in a way that made certain facts no longer WP:V. You can see my outrage over this on my talk page. Then in the April 17 portion of the GOCE copyedit very little content was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, but that's not what I mean at all. I mean that you should probably cut at least one third, perhaps even half of the prose. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I have posted this at WP:GOCE for another copyedit. I also hope that Chaheel Riens will continue to copyedit this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll keep chipping away - something came up in "real life" recently and took me away from wiki, so I was absent for a couple of weeks, but I be back now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bias, undue weight — The article reads more like a fansite or a magazine article than an encyclopedia article, partly due to excessive detail, but also due to the way in which Ratajkowski is portrayed. Far too much attention is placed on her ideas on feminism – while they certainly need to be mentioned, the article doesn't need to catalogue every single time she's stated something on this topic. Undue weight is being placed on this topic — Ratajkowski is primarily notable for being a model and an actor, not for her social activism/political views.
If you read the press that goes beyond whether she i showing us her body again, you will note that she is mostly being discussed as it relates to this issue. Keep in mind that FAC3 demanded that I add more details on a host of issues, including the Blurred Lines controvesies and her activism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not saying that you should delete the discussion on her feminism. However, the majority of the discussion should be contained within the "Advocacy" section, and be synthesized. Currently, you simply quote her a lot, even though it seems that she has mainly spoken about how women should be able to express their sexuality (or to do what they want in general) without shame. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
When you discuss the "Blurred Lines" controversy, only euphemisms ("a man's freedom to force himself on women"; "degradation of women") are used to describe the criticism towards it, namely that the video and the lyrics of the song promote rape/rape culture. These two mentions are followed by three paragraphs (!) of quotes from the video's director and Ratajkowski, essentially disagreeing with the criticism over and over again. So not only is there way too much detail about the video and the controversy, but it also seems like the controversy is presented in a way that is heavily biased towards Ratajkowski's opinion.
The reduction to mostly Ratajkowski's opinions came during the recent copyedit. Other opinions were in the article a week ago, but apparently, a full discourse on the controversies is not considered standard fare in this BLP. Obviously, you are someone who believes the song promotes rape. I am sure you would be happy if only that side of the controversies was presented in the article. Currently, the article gives equal time to both sides in terms of identifying the controversies and then states Ratajkowski's opinions on the controversies. Do you think this is wrong in her BLP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've not even seen the video so I cannot comment on whether the song promotes rape; however, this is what the controversy was about, the critics said that it does. Again, you should not be adding more detail, but you need to remove the euphemisms, and synthesize Ratajkowski's statements. E.g. "Critics have alleged that the song and its video promote rape and rape culture because XYZ. Both Ratajkowski and Martel disagree, stating that the video..." + max. 1-2 quotes. Sorry, but the article doesn't currently give equal time to both sides of the controversy.
Yes many outspoken critics say that it does. As the article says, others disagree.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to write about the controversy, you need to represent the views of both sides. I'm sorry, but your comments are giving further reason to believe that the article is not as unbiased as it should be. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
In FAC3, I had difficulty getting one discussant to even acknowledge that some critics disagree with the claim that the song is a Rapist Anthem. TrueHeartSusie3, do you acknowledge that some critics disagree with this claim? As I said, the article presents both sides with equal time and then presents Ratajkowski's opinions (because this is her bio).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, this is intended to be constructive criticism, but you're taking it way too personally. It is probably the reason why you've gone through 3 FAC nominations and 2 GOCEs already. I have nowhere implied that you should remove the comments which disagree that it promotes rape, simply that you should remove the euphemisms (i.e. state that some people allege it promotes rape in the first place) and that 3 paragraphs of Ratajkowski saying she disagrees is excessive. You yourself admit that your strengths don't lie in copyediting, so then you should probably take heed of others' suggestions. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
O.K. it appears that you do not acknowledge that some critics disagree. I understand detail needs to be removed. I am not really the person to do it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where do I say that I don't acknowledge that some critics disagree? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Every post dances around this. You keep saying critics cry Rape and Ratajkowski disagrees. It is not just that Ratajkowski disagrees. Some critics disagree. This is an article about Ratajkowski. We present both sides and then present Ratajkowski's view. Whichever side her view is will be overweighted in her own article for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. What I said (once again), is that you should a.) acknowledge what the critics said (i.e. replace the weird euphemisms), so that we know what this whole controversy is about in the first place; b.) then represent disagreeing views, the majority of which in this article are Ratajkowski's; c.) however, you should synthesize these, since three paras is just too long in a bio article. Nowhere in this did I say that you shouldn't discuss both sides — on the contrary, what I'm saying is that you need to be less biased. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Further examples:
  • "As of March 30, 2016, two videos in which Ratajkowski appeared for the company—a featured Holiday 2012 video and a local Valentine's 2011 video—are among the five most popular videos on the company's YouTube channel." — The videos being popular doesn't necessarily mean that they're popular due to Ratajkowski's appearance; using the Fredericks of Hollywood account as your source for this seems like OR.
Primary sources are considered WP:RS for numbers like followers, pageviews, likes, friends and such, if no better sources exist. It can not be the case that this content is both be from a RS and is WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you're implying that the videos are the most popular because of Ratajkowski, and you can't use YT as a source for that. As such, it's OR and unnecessary.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
There is not much in the press about Ratajkowski's Fredericks of Hollywood career because it predates her notability. Basically, all we can say is that she was in some videos and the they were popular in comparison to other FoH videos. I am just reporting what little there is to say. The reader can draw their own conclusions as to whether Ratajkowski made the videos popular. Pageviews are what they are.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to the popularity of the videos actually helps the reader find them on the FoH channel. Obviously, the reader who wants to research the popular videos will go to the FoH YT channel and look for the popular videos. If we just say she was in some FoH videos, the reader may not even be able to figure out which ones they were. We almost have to say, go look for the really popular ones if you want to see them for yourself just to help the reader find them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be completely fine to just list the companies she did ads for early in her career. Remember, WP articles shouldn't be collections of all possible information available on a bio subject, but to present an overview with the essential facts. You have to be very selective with the content. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "but some note that her small role as a "duplicitous and manipulative former student" is critical to the film" — Grantland is not a very notable film review website; the Salon review does not seem to state this. In general, it seems like reviews from minor publications were cherrypicked to make Ratajkowski's minor supporting role in the film appear more notable.
Her role in the film was not major. Thus, there are not many sources that have substantial commentary on it. There was no cherrypicking. Her role in Gone Girl was not critically reviewed almost anywhere other than the sources cited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly — then there's no point in stating that a minor reviewer thinks the character is important, and the Salon review is still falsely cited as further evidence of this. You can simply state that she had a minor role in a major film, but wasn't mentioned in most reviews.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
In prior versions, I had statements about how major reviewers were silent on Ratajkowski and this was met with great opposition. You are asking me revert to a format that has already been disapproved of.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem like she co-starred in Entourage, but rather appeared in a cameo role. The reviews are again interpreted as praise, even when they aren't, e.g. "uncanny realism" in the Philly review —the writers of the review don't mean this seriously, the line is "Vince can't decide whether he's going to date actress Emily Ratajkowski (played with uncanny realism by actress Emily Ratajkowski)", i.e. of course it's realistic since she's playing herself—; the Slant review doesn't describe Ratajkowski as a muse, but rather states that her character is intended to be the leading man's muse ("He finds a muse in the form of Stanford dropout Sophie").
The role was very extensive and much more than a cameo. You may have a case regarding uncanny, but I am not sure I understand your point regarding "muse".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that just your opinion though? The principal cast of the show seem to have the starring roles, and you've written that she doesn't actually have a lot of screen time. It seems to me like her cameo is notable, but she is definitely not a co-star. As for the muse bit, you seem to be saying that Ratajkowski as an actor is a 'muse', when that's just a description of the character's role in the film in general. It would be fine to use it in your description of the role she plays (e.g. "In We Are Your Friends, Ratajkowski plays X, the 'muse' of Zac Efron's character..." etc.).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I don't know the exact hollywood lingo for the significance of her role. However, she had a significant enough role in the early part of the film that multiple critics noticed that she seemed to be conspicuously absent from the later parts of the film (as noted in the current version of the article),--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prose — Repetition in several paragraphs, and confusing, non-encyclopedic sentences like "Her role as Vincent Chase's (played by Adrian Grenier) visually appealing love interest is described in a myriad of sexist ways in the press, with several mentions of her as the object of multiple affections"; "Other critics note in passing that Ratajkowski was among the key members of the solid supporting cast"; "her telegenic appearance".

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I am not sure what to make of this paragraph. The content has been copyedited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a lot more copyediting, but I'm not sure if GOCE can help you since I'm under the impression that they mostly focus on correcting grammatical errors etc. minor issues, but can't edit content, so when they encounter non-encyclopedic language, repetition or sentences that don't make sense, they can't do a lot. Especially not if they have to fear that the 'original' editor will be 'outraged' at them, like you describe above. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I would like to improve the statements that you have issues with above, but I don't understand what the issues are. GRuban, you have been a good intermediary in similar issues in the past. Can you explain the issue with these phrases.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need to summarize. In general, my review can be summarized thus: a.) summarize and cut excessive detail; b.) be more neutral both in language and content. Since the article needs an overhaul, it's not ready for FA. I suggest you open a peer review, and allow some experienced editors who aren't fans of Ratajkowski to do what they see is best with the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm in THS' corner here, Tony. There's a lot of undue weight in the article; you need to summarize. That said, given our previous disputes I'm not going to oppose to avoid the impression I'm going after you personally. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to respond to this issue. I guess I will have to do more. Let's see what I can do over the next 72 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The ed17, Since you are on THS' side and I don't understand what that is, maybe you can help me. Undue weight is as vague as the bias. I have attempted to present both sides of controversies with equal time and then Ratajkowski's view. Is there undue weight on either side of the controversies or on Ratajkowski's view?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, first of all, the examples I listed are just examples, not an exhaustive list of every detail that should be corrected in the article. If you don't see how the article contains excessive detail and essentially seems like a puff piece, then I'm not sure I can help you, and you're certainly not ready for FAC. If you treat people who give you feedback the way you have done so far (see the comments Laser Brain was referring to; your bizarre insistence that I'm trying to erase the disagreeing views on the "BL" controversy; your being 'outraged' at TT), then don't be surprised if people don't want to interact with you. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comments from GRuban[edit]

As per last review (where I had a lot more to say) can still support. It hasn't gotten worse. --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 25 April 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.
More