(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)
172,064 edits
Line 269: Line 269:
:*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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
:*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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
::*{{u|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.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
::*{{u|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.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
:::*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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:01, 24 May 2016

Emily Ratajkowski

Emily Ratajkowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
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]

  • Note to FAC coordinators (Ian Rose and Laser brain): The article currently has an open GOCE. In FAC4, Laser commented that "an article with an open GOCE request strikes me as admittedly unprepared". In this case, the open GOCE was made during FAC4. Given all the changes I have made to the article since then (noted above), I don't think the open GOCE is an admission of unpreparedness. It remains open only because 1.) it is at the top of the GOCE queue and likely to be addressed promptly, 2.) I don't think a GOCE would hurt the nomination, and 3.) This is now a time-sensitive nomination. If either of you thinks I should close the GOCE in order to go forward, I am willing to do so. Also, I am willing to suspend the nomination (hopefully for no more than 48 hours) if a GOCE is considered disruptive to the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Drmies

  • I will just say that I think Tony has done a good job cutting this down. I think more needs to be cut. A 91k article on a minor, minor figure, with minor parts in maybe two notable movies and a few TV things, with 205 references from mostly the entertainment press, and six full paragraphs on her "activism and advocacy" which, while verified, is minor in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think that this is the kind of thing we ought to be doing. Yes, the stuff is verified, and well-organized--but it's stuff, just stuff. I don't want to start a fight but FA criteria 4... BTW, yes, I thanked Tony for an edit that pruned the article some, and I will gladly continue to do so. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • this edit was the one you thanked me for. It took the article to 19447 characters of readable prose. I have not often seen people discuss the wikitext size of articles at FAC. I think it is the readable prose count that matters. Yes she is a low-importance actress. The question is not whether her acting career has been impressive. Note that no one known primarily as a model has achieved FA for some reason. Should we really discount entertainment press sources so much that a model cannot achieve FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I do my thing, you do yours. She is a low-importance actress, and devoting this much space to a low-importance actress, with low-level sources (not a single book, I don't think), and then putting it in the FA window for the Wikipedia shoppers, sorry, I have a hard time with that. I've made similar comments before on GA reviews and, I guess, all over the place, not just in K-pop articles. I made a suggestion or two. She [well, the article] can get to FA status without 205 references and with less text and less table porn. I think it's high time that we take item 4 seriously--not just here, but also, and perhaps especially, in GA reviews. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • At GA, there seems to be no relation between importance and the viability of a nomination. Thus, articles of all levels of importance seem to be viewed as deserving of the same level of detail. However, here everyone wants to say that this subject is low-importance and thus less worthy of consideration for FA and less worthy of editorial attention. I.e., since she is not an award-winning actress, she should not be detailed on WP. At GA, there is no such relationship. Here it seems that WP:WIAFA 4 is used to say that an article is being detailed more than a higher importance article that would be more deserving of that level of detail. There is a clear disconnect between the interpretation of WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. I believe I had addressed all the source review issues prior to closing FAC3, but the reviewer had not evaluated my responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, one of your reservations was "six full paragraphs on her 'activism and advocacy'". I have been looking at the other actress FACs and have reorganized this content. I was wondering what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Numerounovedant

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]
  • In defense of the table, there was probably a time when a discography or filmography was considered an unnecessary table. We have never had a person notable primarily as a model achieve FA. Thus, I thought I would try to assemble a table detailing her modelling history. A coverography could be shown to be as notable as a filmography is for an actress or a discography is as a musician because there are multiple reliable sources that present the details that I present in the table. I am not just cobbling stuff together. You can go out to the internet and find this stuff fairly easily, IMO. Models.com does the most comprehensive job at covering this, but fashionmodeldirectory.com does a decent job at covering these and there are other sources. Since we are suppose to summarize the secondary sources, this type of table is as interesting an element of summarizing secondary sources for a model as a filmography or discography might be. Its importance to a biography is similar to Template:2010–19 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit in the sense that for people more notable for things other than modelling it is considered irrelevant, but for models it is considered important. Sure a coverography for an actress is not really an important thing, but for a model, it is somewhat defining.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 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]

Review by FrB.TG

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)

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

Hi, TonyTheTiger. I made some edits[1][2] 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]

Image review

Some concerns:

  • The nude image is non-free and in my view its use here doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    The rationale says the image provides "critical visual information" but doesn't say what that is. The argument in FAC 3 seemed to be that, because a man liked an image of a naked woman enough to offer her another job being naked, we must see the image to be able to understand. Using that reasoning, if a film director offers someone a part based on their performance in a previous film, we could claim fair use of that film to help us understand the director's point of view. Or if someone gets a second book contract because their first book was successful, we could claim fair use of that book to "significantly increase readers' understanding" of why the second contract was offered.
    The rest of the non-free rationale should be removed: "Ratajkowski has advocated against censoring female nudity (especially her own) and as the w:WP:BLP subject would take offense to censorship of her nudity." [3]
  • The horizontal images in the "Music video performances" section look crowded and squeeze the text. Because of the shadow, the lipliner image looks as though ​something is being smeared on her. The semi-nude image is ​un​pleasant. The captions – "receiving hair spray," "getting lipliner​" – could use a rewrite.
    It isn't clear that the video from which the images derive is free (see Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). It was uploaded to Vimeo as cc-by in March 2013 by Eric Longden, who filmed it with Mike Marasco. [4] Is Longden the copyright holder​? ​The video ​opens with "Tony Kelly for GQ Türkiye" (see Tony Kelly)​, so I would expect one of them, probably GQ, to hold the copyright. ​​GQ Türkiye uploaded it to YouTube in April 2013 with the standard licence. [5] Longden did the same in September 2013. [6] Someone should ask Longden to confirm the release and that he's the copyright holder (and/or contact GQ), then forward the details to permissions.

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

  • I understand your issues to be the following:
  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
    3. FUR content unnecessary
  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
  4. Semi-nude image is unpleasant.
  5. WP:CAPTIONs need to be rewritten.
  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. [7][8][9] 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]
  • I've heard back from Longden and he is not the copyright holder. I'll forward the correspondence to permissions. SarahSV (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • SlimVirgin, I repeat. There is not one copyright holder. There are sort of layers. The first copyright is the subject. I.e., sculptures are always copyrighted in certain jurisdictions. Works of music are often copyrighted by a lyricist and a songwriter or teams thereof. Meanwhile, people are not copyrighted in the United States, but {{personality rights}} are different by jurisdiction. It may be the case that a human subject owns a copyright to photos of them in Turkey. However, I doubt it given the number of photos that we have of Category:Turkish footballers. Given that human subjects in Turkey are probably not copyrightable per se, the next level of copyright is determined by who did the work. A photographer/videographer always owns the copyright to his own work (consider the Monkey selfie issue), but he may be restricted from releasing it if the subject has a copyright. Given what is in Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot, Longden may very well want to take back his released copyright, but if he is in fact the photographer, he can not unless at the time he released the work he did not have the right. Of course, he may have given up his copyright, but if he is the photographer he has/had a copyright. I.e., if he had signed over his copyright to Condé Nast (GQ) as part of a publication contract or performed the work as an employee of Condé Nast, he may have surrendered his copyright. Is he claiming he was not the photographer, that he was an employee of Condé Nast or that he signed over the photographer copyright to Condé Nast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GRuban

  • "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".
  • "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...
  • 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".
  • 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?
  • "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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive5&oldid=721926083"