The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 [1].

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

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

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

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

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

Notifying

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

Comments by Drmies[edit]

Comments by Numerounovedant[edit]

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

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

Some other observations-

"Ratajkowski was told that modelling could lead to an acting career." - It is again very Weasely, not to say uninformative.
I don't think WP:WEASEL really applies, but I have removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models", she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." - Really doesn't belong in the career section.
I am not sure where to move it. See what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either personal life or media image NumerounovedantTalk 12:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is in media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" As they touch, they reveal each other. Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video." - Does not belong in her article, maybe the music video's article.
"Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Alonso Duralde of TheWrap, note Ratajkowski's early disappearance from the film." - How is that important?
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "March 2013 GQ Türkiye" images should be reduced in size. They are really sitracting this way.
180px-->160px.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Review by FrB.TG[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by Vensatry (a quick scan)[edit]

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

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

Some concerns:

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

  1. Images fail WP:NFCC #8 because
    1. Reasoning is that "man likes random nudity which led to more nudity so we need to show the reader the random nudity"
    2. FUR needs clarification
      Expanded--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    3. FUR content unnecessary
      Content irrelevant to WP:NFCC removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Images crowd text.
    Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lipliner image looks smeared
    We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Semi-nude image is unpleasant.
    We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:CAPTIONs need to be rewritten.
    I could use some advice. I am not sure what the problem is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Image free use unclear (Who is copyright holder?.)
    INeverCry and czar reviewed the images at Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot. As I understand it, cinematographer, publisher and subject each have some sort of rights, but Ratajkowski's rights are merely ((personality rights)) in this case. I do not understand why a cinematographer can release his copyright and make something free without the consent of the publisher. Thus, I am not sure what verification I am being told to needs to be sought. Given my level of expertise, I would feel more comfortable if someone else sought this clarification or would give me a precise question/set of questions to ask.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyright holder is the only one that can release the video, so you need to find out who that is and make sure they understand the implications of releasing it. In the case of GQ, they will understand, but it might have to come from their legal department. Links here to email addresses for GQ, Tony Kelly and Eric Longden. [8][9][10] See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a suggested email the copyright holder needs to send. SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SarahSV, as I understand it there is no claim that GQ has relinquished its copyright or that Kelly has released his. The only relevant inquiry is whether Longden has released his and then we need to determine if his act is sufficient. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not correct. It is most likely that either Condé Nast (GQ) or Tony Kelly or Eric Longden owns the copyright, not all three. You need to find out which one does. Then you need to ask the copyright owner for a release under a Creative Commons licence and forward that release to permissions. It seems to me unlikely that the copyright holder would release an expensive photoshoot so that others could make commercial use of it. But of course I could be wrong about that; perhaps they had their reasons. But first, you need to find out who owns the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, I know I am not qualified to address the issues of the copyright. However, I do know enough about the issue to tell by your response that you do not understand the issues of the copyright either. You speak of the copyright as if it is a singular thing. There is not one copyright holder for a published work. There are typically 3 or 4. May I ask if you are even a qualified image reviewer because someone who does not understand copyrights well enough to understand this might serve WP well to step aside of an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clarification needs to come from permissions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this misses the point. The question is whether anyone has released this video. There are three entities that we assume might be in a position to do so: Condé Nast/GQ; the director; and/or the cameraman. The director and cameraman have both said the video has not been released.
    When we add images to FACs nowadays, we're expected to do due diligence. Sometimes it's obvious on Vimeo, YouTube or Flickr that the person posting a release is the copyright holder and really did intend to release it, but often it isn't. In this case, it's a red flag that someone would release an expensive photoshoot so that other commercial entities can use it for profit.
    The safest thing to do in these cases is to email them, ask if they own the copyright, and make sure they understand what a Creative Commons licence entails (namely that anyone can use their work for any reason). When that is confirmed, if you forward the correspondence to permissions, then it's on file that the release was confirmed and understood. SarahSV (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Vimeo account was his, it does not matter whether he now says he intended to release his copyright. He probably did not expect to see his work all over wikipedia. I am sure he did not expect to see his work posted on WP at Hair rollers, Lip liner, and so on (See the what links here link for Ratajkowski). He could now say he did not want to release it as an attempt to take back his release, but I believe it is too late.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not supposed to take advantage of people who have made mistakes. Someone might have an intern upload something and add the wrong tag. Or they might believe they have released it but they don't own the copyright. Or they do own the copyright but didn't realize what releasing it meant. That's why it's important to email people before uploading if there is room for doubt, particularly if it's for a featured article.
    I had a photographer release an image to me once of a person, a very clear release, after I had explained to her what it meant. It was a good photograph, except that she had added a strong orange colour to the person's face. I removed the colour, uploaded the image and added it to an article. She immediately emailed me to say I did not have her permission to remove the orange, and she was upset because she thought it only looked good with the added colour. In fact it looked very strange. I therefore deleted the image and regarded the release as invalid, because it was obvious that she had not understood what a release meant, and I didn't want her to be upset. SarahSV (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Czar, as I wrote below, Longden said that someone his end chose the wrong licence by mistake. SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be that simple. The CC license is irrevocable, so our own diligence and grace period separates mistake from regret. But this aside, ticket:2016052410026559 says that GQ owns the copyright and that Longden only has creative rights, so the video would not be his to relicense. I've opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot czar 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to explain is something like 1.) The image looks not much different from what I would have imagined a fame-propelling magazine cover to look like and adds nothing. 2.) I found the composition to be about what I would have expected of such a magazine cover and the image adds nothing or maybe I found the composition to be overhyped and unspectacular enough that I can not believe The NYT expended any space describing it in various ways. 3.) I found her appearance to be about what I would have imagined based on such a statement and it added nothing.
If you can get back on topic (since you revel in discussing the nudity of the image), and cogently explain why none of these points are valid, we can move forward on whether the image should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GRuban[edit]

Addressed comments
  • "Ratajkowski staged theatrics for her family as a child." Heh, heh, heh. As a parent, my immediate reaction was "and what child doesn't?" I recommend "shows" or "theatrical performances" or something else that isn't just a synonym for "tantrum".
  • Also link Cruise; as a major release it should have an article soon, so even a red link is worth it. Similarly In Darkness, and, probably, Easy. (Do most Netflix shows get articles?)
  • Finally add at least one word of description to each of the former two - are they films? Stage plays? TV shows? Miniseries? Music videos?
  • She said: "... there's different kinds of nudity, and ... the video was tasteful ..." - I would remove the last ellipsis, and put a period after the last quote.
  • "Ratajkowski has a variety of upcoming roles." - As of when? Assume you get hit by a truck and no one edits this article for the next three years. Will this still make sense? Add "as of 2016" or something.
  • "Cruise, which is written and directed Robert Siegel." Add "by".
  • "Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9] and claimed that the producers "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting",[48] using humor and sarcasm." - the way you have it, with the last 4 words outside the quotes and after the comma means that Ratajkowski used humor and sarcasm in claiming that the producers made the video more interesting. Is that what you meant to write? I'm guessing not...
    • Actually, if I recall my GMAT preparation correctly, the referent would be assumed to be the closest subject, which in this case is the producers. The sentence is actually correct I believe. I might wrong and the referent is the closest noun. However, Ratajkowski, is the most remote subject and noun. If I changed the sentence to read "Using humor and sarcasm, Ratajkowski..." then it would mean she used humor and sarcasm.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beckham's famous catch from 2014" - if it's famous, do we have an article on it, or the game it was in?
  • Re: SarahSV's image review. First, a disclaimer - I found the various videos the screenshots came from, and uploaded the first few screenshots, though Tony has since surpassed my work. I kind of agree with Sarah's sexism objection to the magazine cover from previous reviews, but won't oppose because on it; it's an editorial decision, and it's at least arguable as appearing nude is a non-negligible part of what Ratajkowski does. However, I do object to the assertion that before we can use the images from Eric Longden's video, we need to have Eric Longden write OTRS. The entire point of putting a Creative Commons tag on media is that other people can use it without first having to write the author and ask for permission! If you are doubting that Longden has the rights to the video, well, we can hardly demand that he upload his contract, then hire lawyers to go over it. He's the film maker, if he says he can put it under CC-BY, then we need take his word for it. After all, that is exactly what an email to OTRS would be, just his word; why is his word in an email that only OTRS can read somehow more reliable than his word in a publically visible web site like Vimeo? If you're doubting that he works for GQ, well, his web site and his LinkedIn both list GQ Magazine as clients (among numerous others). If you're doubting he has the rights to this particular video, well, the Huffington Post seems to believe him. With all due respect for Sarah's experience and judgment in other areas, and they are great, in this particular case these objections are just wrong. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi GRuban, I think you missed the point I was making, namely that we don't know who owns the copyright. The same video has been posted to YouTube by Longden and GQ under a non-free licence. See the final paragraph of my post at 14:04, 24 May 2016. The first step is to establish who the copyright holder is. If it is Longden and he intended to release it on Vimeo (assuming he understands the implications of having done so), and if his later upload to YouTube under a non-free licence was an error, then all is well and no further action is needed. But that needs to be confirmed, because the current situation is unclear. SarahSV (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, I really don't think you understand copyrights and am becoming very uncomfortable with you as the image reviewer. As the filmmaker, he has a copyright and unless the subject is copyrighted per se, he has permission to release his own work to creative commons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longden was hired by Kelly to shoot this for GQ. Longden has confirmed that he is not the copyright holder. Kelly has confirmed that the video has not been released under a free licence. The correspondence has been forwarded to permissions, so they will decide how to proceed. SarahSV (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Sarah - you got a response from Longden?!? In one day? Great work. Though very sad, of course. What is your secret to getting the response, though? I admit, one of the main reasons I was so opposed to writing him was that I was sure he wouldn't respond. I've done this getting images of people a few times, and in my experience, writing an actual article subject for or about an image gets no response most of the time, and if any response does come (including "no", that also happens), it comes in three months! So I was sure no response would come either ever, or not in time to be useful. Sarah, tell me your secret! Oh well. You did a great job. I admit, I am not happy with the result, but it was still good work. Thank you. Grrr.
Sorry, Tony. Unfortunately, if Longden does not own the rights, and put up the video in error, we're going to have to pull the images. All those lovely, lovely images, that you and I searched the Web for, scanned the video for, screenshotted, cropped, and edited. Trust me, it hurts me too; you edited them, but I did the searching. We can't make a case out of this; even if we could, we shouldn't, because we're not in this business to hurt people; but in this case we simply can't. If he had owned the rights, and released them, then was trying to change his mind, we could make an argument that the release was non-revocable, we have done that before in a minority of cases ... but here, if he says he simply didn't own the rights, then he didn't. By default, the person taking the photograph - or in this case, the video - owns the rights, but he can sign those rights away, and if he says he did that as part of the GQ shoot, then we need to believe him. We shouldn't do it ourselves, as we don't have his email, maybe his phrasing isn't quite that; but the Commons OTRS folks will see exactly what Longden wrote, and if it is this, the pics will have to go. Very sad. We still have a couple of images from other videos, that's something. C'est la vie. --GRuban (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this guy's web page. He puts up every video that he does under creative commons licensing. I don't see how this one could be by mistake.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I have. That is one of the reasons I thought he was legitimate - i.e., clearly a professional photographer, and consciously releasing all his work - yet also because of that I am willing to believe that this one was by mistake, because he just puts all his work under this license, and may not be looking too carefully at his contracts, which may well be different for different clients. He doesn't just work for GQ, after all, he works for dozens if not hundreds of clients; while I am sure the contracts he himself writes up for the smaller clients give him all the rights to his videos, I wouldn't be surprised if at least GQ, as one of his bigger clients, could set the terms for rights. I will wait for the OTRS folks to read the email Sarah forwarded to them, but I think we should be morally prepared for it to say what she says it does. --GRuban (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, seeing those apparent releases had the opposite effect on me, because it makes no sense for a professional photographer to release all his work, especially such high-quality work, so that other people can make money from it. And at least some of the work probably couldn't be released (the Pepsi ad, for example). If you look at the same videos on YouTube, they're not free. There may be something about the way Vimeo describes its licences that makes it easy to choose the wrong tag. SarahSV (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Copy-edit by the Guild of Copy Editors[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from FunkyCanute[edit]

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

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

Early life

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

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

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

Career

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rise to fame

*The title strikes me as WP:PEACOCK.

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

*The final four paragraphs are not in chronological order.

Personal life

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

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

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

GRuban, you are the SlimVirgin-whisperer. I am not finding the issues herein actionable. What am I not understanding? I am trying to WP:AGF here, but feel I am just up against someone who will do anything to keep this article from passing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh - I already got into trouble for mansplaining once, now I'm being asked to do it again! (Well, kind of. Technically mansplaining is explaining to a woman, not quite about one...) Tony, she's not writing in some foreign language that I need to interpret. (If she were writing in Russian, I could do that for you!) SlimVirgin / Sarah (SV) is an experienced Wikipedia editor, FA writer and (presumably, I haven't checked) reviewer. Yes, she does not like the nude image. Since you seem set on having it, there doesn't seem to be a way around that, it will be a road bump. You might be able to get the article passed anyway, if that is the sole objection, but if you have several road bumps like that you won't pass, so addressing the things that you and she can find common ground on seems like a good idea, rather than pushing back on every little thing, and assuming that Sarah is out to get you. She is not. No, she is clearly not a personal fan of the subject; but in the end, she is able to overcome that in an effort to make the article better. She doesn't have to actually like the subject in order to write well about it - her most recent FA is Female genital mutilation, I hope you can accept she is not a fan of that? Addressing the specific things she says, with rare exceptions like the nude image, is quite possible. For example, she is saying that Charlie Burton of GQ magazine is not an expert on feminism. You're saying that there are 6 sources for that paragraph, GQ is only one. Well, just at first glance, then, there seems to be room to meet there; the other 5 are presumably better sources on feminism than GQ, a, by definition, men's magazine. No? Surely the other 5 sources can support most if not all of what you want to write there? (If you would like to insist that Burton is an expert on feminism, please dig up some sources that say so, or noticeable works he's written on the subject, or something like that; it is theoretically possible to be an expert on feminism without being a feminist ... but frankly I suspect just relying on the mainstream papers and the women's magazines will be easier.) --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FACR: 1(a) the writing is not "engaging and of a professional standard"; 1(d) it does not "present[...] views fairly and without bias" (specifically, it violates WP:UNDUE); 3: non-free images must satisfy NFCC; and 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail ...". To that I should have added 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources." There are several sources here that are not appropriate for their use. I offered examples of each of these issues above.
Again, I suggest reading all five FAC reviews and fixing the issues reviewers have highlighted, bearing in mind that reviewers only offer examples of problems. So the examples that are highlighted need to be sorted out, but so do others that are similar in kind. Overall I would say the article needs a rewrite and a rethink rather than a copy edit.
Tony, perhaps you could find someone to partner with who doesn't care about the subject, because part of the problem here is that you've become too close to it. I know that will be difficult, because people who don't care are unlikely to want to work on something like this, but it might be worth asking around. Either that or take it off your watchlist for a few months to create some distance for yourself. I've done that several times with articles I've worked on, and it has always helped. SarahSV (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I really feel that your review amounts to a wiki-filibuster. I have been responding to issues of the 5 FACs for several months. I have addressed some of your concerns and have no idea whether you have even noticed. Since you have the dual role as the image reviewer, it is particularly troubling that you have not articulated a response to my latest fair use rationale, which was phrased in direct response to your prior statements. Note that in this review, I have sought commentary from the other editors who were editing FAC-nominated actress articles. This is the closest I could come to partnering with an interested party "who doesn't care about the subject". Unfortunately, model articles are not common at FAC and Ratajkowski has met with more success as a model than an actess.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the major points I raised have been dealt with. The main issue for me is that the article is not well-enough written for FA. Every other objection from me is secondary to that one.
I responded to the fair-use issue at 14:04, 24 May, second paragraph. The edits to the rationale after that didn't address those points. The rationale implies that any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job – or perhaps any photograph that changed someone's career – can be uploaded under a fair-use claim so that readers can judge why the job offerers liked them.
Regarding the writing, I understand the difficulty of finding someone to partner with. But an alternative is for you not to read the article for a while. That has worked well for me in the past.
That's really all I want to say, so I'd prefer to leave it there. SarahSV (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, Your fair use argument seems to be double speak to me. Above you note your disapproval of sources of modest notability suggesting that they be replaced by more esteemed and notable sources. However, when I back up a fair use claim with quotations from The New York Times you insist that fair use images justified by the highest caliber sources should be ignored in favor of your own personal beliefs about what constitutes a notable subject. Am I to believe that your opinion/understanding on what constitutes a notable images is a better arbiter than determining what the NYT considers fit to print. I will gladly remove the image when you can explain to me why your personal understanding of notable images is superior to those of NYT editors or maybe GRuban can help me understand your points in this regard. I assume that the NYT editors are capable of determining which images (naked or not) are fit to print. The NYT does not document the notability of "any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job". I am quite sure they only consider details of certain ones fit to print and whether or not you personally are sophisticated enough destinguish which ones are that notable, they are. Your current NFCC objection is nothing more than a statement that you are not confident that the NYT's opinion of the worth of a "photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job" can be trusted over your own inability to distinguish which ones are notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, Regarding writing, I do not consider myself to be a great writer. I research and add content in as objective a manner as I can. Sometimes others get interested in subjects that I have authored for WP and have turned my research into high caliber prose. In terms of my WP:FACs, I have had my best success when other editors have gotten involved in the copyediting. The article has had 3 WP:GOCE copyedits. Honestly, I do not believe that even a great copyedit would meet with your approval because I believe your objection is a veiled objection to the fact that a model-turned-actress who rose to notability in an arguably anti-feminist manner should have an FA. However, (off the top of my head) there are two editors who have helped me get multiple FAs promoted with their substantial copyediting assistance. I don't think this subject matter interests either of them. I will ping them both (Ruhrfisch and Figureskatingfan) here and leave them messages on their talk pages. Note that in FAC3, the latter supported at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive3#Comments_from_Figureskatingfan. I have trimmed the article quite a bit and it is vastly improved since she last saw it. Maybe one of the two of them will be interested in lending a hand with a copy edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A third editor (Ceoil) who I also doubt will find this subject of interest has helped me promote some FAs but only those in the WP:WPVA area. I will also approach him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Curly Turkey has been a WPVA only FA copyeditor for me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

Oppose per WP:WIAFA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinator note: After almost two months open, there is still substantial ongoing opposition and definitely no consensus for promotion developing. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More