Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2016 [1].

Emily Ratajkowski

Nominator(s):
WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is about model, actress and activist

WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from GRuban

  • Disclaimer - I uploaded the free images for the article, no other contributions that I can recall. But I am, of course, tempted to promote for the photos alone. :-). Otherwise:
Extended content

--GRuban (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But the grammar is still a problem and the sentence doesn't really mean anything: "Ratajkowski is outspoken on her interest in using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality." [4] Outspoken about an interest in the implications of speaking out?
I think you should ask that the nomination be archived. Better to give yourself some distance (i.e. don't read it for a while), then come back with fresh eyes, and when you've finished the first round of improvements, nominate it for peer review. SarahSV (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Tony, I think you should not nominate this for the main page for her 25th (or any other) birthday. That would come across as a little personal and strange, and it again makes the article appear promotional. SarahSV (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm afraid I agree with Tony here; there is nothing wrong with trying to feature an article on the subject's birthday. --GRuban (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially we're down to Sarah's point #2. If you remove the low quality sources, and where necessary removing the content that can only be sourced to them, and will keep being responsive to what little individual issues can be found, I will support. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You got most of it. I'd recommend still removing
  • The Daily Something (tabloid) article "‘Blurred Lines’ hottie is feeling the Bern" (I think I give better sources for her Sanders support somewhere around here)
  • "She got the part through a New York City "cattle call" audition and a subsequent Los Angeles reading with Affleck and Fincher.[79] Fincher was seeking an actress who could bring a divisive element to the film." - those seem too much detail. So she got a small part through an audition and a reading, that's pretty much how actresses get parts; the "divisive element" is a bit vague. Either specify what it means or remove it ... but only specify it if it is really important, and not just any attractive actress would have done ... which seems unlikely.
  • "Gill ... admits she is in the minority, but felt " - this is one tense mix I won't accept. Either both present or both past.
  • same sentence "...that the letter was trite and boring" - the article does not say trite, it says rambling and dull. I can accept boring as a synonym to dull, but can't see trite as a synonym of either that or rambling. I think you should just say rambling and dull, two words, especially when specifically attributed to Gill, are not plagiarism.
  • I don't think so. Trite means "cliche", "overused", "banal",[5] while "pass the violin" means "melodramatic", "overemotional", "exaggerated"; not really the same thing. Arguably "pass the violin" really means "I don't like her, so want to write a petty personal attack", but we can't write that. Gad what a mean article. IMHO, the important lines in Gill's article aren't the criticisms of ER's partial autobiography, as much as lines like: "she wants to fight against the objectification and oppression of women’s bodies, yet she happily profits from her ability to titillate men... endorsed art that demeans and dehumanises femkind..." etc. ("Femkind"? Yes, femkind. When you write for the Independent you get to make up words.) --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.--
    WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
but honestly that's nitpicking. I'll assume you'll either do those or present strong reasons why not, assuming you do, I can support. --GRuban (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah commenting on my comments based on her comments... we must go deeper...
Hang on, GRuban, I object to your comment that my opposition to the non-free image is "a cover for the real objection, which is that the image may be seen as offensive to some readers." It isn't a cover for anything, and certainly not that it might seem offensive to some readers, a point I haven't raised at all.
My objection to the image is that it is a non-free, professional image of a living person, and that the policy is being ignored because it's an image of a naked woman. Its use here is sexist and gratuitous, both directly but also indirectly because the usual objections to non-free in BLPs have been magically suspended for it. The use of the image (along with other factors) makes this appear to be an article written by men for men, and this is exactly the sort of thing we're supposed to look out for on Wikipedia.
I've had several FAs promoted and I've had to remove non-free images that I felt were important. I've reviewed around 120 FACs, including several image reviews, and I've watched hundreds more, so I know that the image policies are strictly applied at FAC.
No convincing argument has been made that the image satisfies: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." See
WP:NFCC. SarahSV (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
(Edit conflict, this was responding to SarahSV two paragraphs above): In case I was not clear, this is a list of my objections, even though they were based on your excellent list; I'm not claiming that I'm strictly restating your objections here, or that answering my objections will necessarily satisfy yours. Obviously my writing that this seems like a cover is not simply restating your view, it's my opinion of it; you don't just say "it's non-free use" and stop there, every time you say "it's non-free use and it's sexist". And your writing "it's sexist" is the same as "offensive to some readers", specifically because we know for a fact that at least one rather important person doesn't think it's sexist, namely Ratajkowski. She feels quite strongly that her right to pose sexily is feminist, in fact; and at least in the reliable sources we have found for this article she's gotten more support for saying that than she has gotten criticism. So we can't claim "it's sexist" as some sort of absolute fact as "it's black and white" or "it's a magazine cover" or "she's naked", it is an opinion; "it's sexist" is only going to be considered true by some readers. And as to the NFCC point as such, well, Tony responds that it is a vital artistic work; I'm not that up on the distinction there, so have to leave any objection to those who are. I similarly won't be backing the image as vital to the article either. Anyway, that's my explanation for why I'm not objecting based on it. What's your point? That I should be objecting based on this? Well, while I respect you highly, we are different people. Or is it that you think that I object to your objection? I don't, and in fact agree that the image will be perceived as sexist by a large fraction of viewers. It's just that many of those readers who will think the image is sexist will, as you brought up in point 3, consider most of Ratajkowski's career to be sexist, and will object to us featuring her article at all, not just this image in it. After all, this image is, basically, what she does. So while I personally would prefer we feature the article and not the image, and therefore offend fewer readers, I am not going to oppose promotion just on that splitting of hairs. You may, of course, and I don't see your objection here as invalid, just not strong enough for me, personally, to back to the extent of opposing promoting the article over. OK? --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's sexist is not the same (not the same at all) as saying it might be offensive to some readers. We wouldn't object to a racist article just because some readers might be offended.
I don't want to insult anyone, but I'm experiencing two men (particularly Tony) explain to me what feminism and sexism are. I see an image review from someone involved in Gamergate. And I see an article about a woman that was clearly written by a man for men. So this is a very typical issue in terms of Wikipedia's sexism, a problem that has been noticed by many mainstream sources, not only by me.
That's over and above that the article is poorly written, a point noted in all the FACs (writing from memory). Good writing isn't something that is tacked on at the end, something a copy editor can quickly offer. Writing reflects the way the writer structures their thoughts.
A good writer would find words to deal (briefly) with the sexism allegations against the subject, and would find a way to write this article so that it didn't reflect the sexism of many of the sources. That's the kind of high-quality, disinterested writing I hope Tony can find for this piece, either by doing it himself or by finding someone to help. But I think he needs space to think about it. Trying to achieve it while it's at FAC won't work. SarahSV (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Yes, that did hurt; thanks for saying it wasn't intended to. If it seemed like I was trying to explain to you feminism or sexism are, I apologize; that was not my intent. But will you agree that Ratajkowski does go to some lengths to explain what they are? And that she disagrees that the picture is sexist? And that she is backed in her opinion on that by lots of sources, cited in the article? Again, I more agree with your opinion, if I am allowed to call it an opinion. But it does seem that your view is that what you are saying is fact, while what she is saying is mere opinion. --GRuban (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. I'm not sure what you mean about R's view of the picture. I feel as though I'm having to argue that the grass is green, and this is another common experience for women on Wikipedia. I can't keep doing it, so this may have to be my last comment on this point.
Looking at it in terms of policy: there is a mainstream opinion among high-quality sources that the video is misogynist, as are the lyrics. The article must reflect the mainstream view, per
WP:DUE. The article can include R's view and other minority views in proportion, but it ought not to present the minority view as a majority one, or place the minority view in WP's voice. SarahSV (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, I agree with that second paragraph, but don't see how it leads to objection. Does that bear in any way on the image in our article? Because I don't see how. Or is your objection that the article still doesn't reflect that mainstream view of BL? Well, then, we're veering off topic ... but I guess we can do that. I don't think that the article does represent the mainstream view as a minority, I do think the article has been improved to the point that it clearly states that BL was criticized more than supported by the world, but it was supported by ER. "Over 20 University student unions banned or condemned the song", that's pretty clear the world objected to it. The fact that it gives most space to ER's views - well, they're her views, the article isn't about BL, it's about her, so as long as it makes clear that these are her views, not the majority opinion, that's perfectly appropriate. It's like it lets her say that she was pressured growing up without giving equal time to her peers and parents, though she is one and they are many; or that she didn't like her college, even though, no doubt, the majority opinion is that it's a fine college; surely we won't be insisting that every time she gives an opinion, the world's opinion be automatically given more space than hers? Again, this is the space for my objections. I don't object due to this. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't write much about controversial topics. I am not sure what proper presentation is for controversial topics. I have presented about equal weight on both sides of the argument of whether the song is sexist. However, I have also presented equal time to both sides of the debate of whether Ratajkowski has a feminist message. I think far more support her arguments than oppose. I think presenting equal time to both sides is the fairest.--
WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I can support. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments from Cirt

Comments from Cirt (addressed) — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
The NFCC policy says (point 2.8): "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."
That has not yet been argued for, and I can't see how this image satifies that requirement. Claiming fair use to allow a photograph of a naked woman to be added to her BLP seems wrong-headed, and the use of it appears sexist and gratuitous. If she wanted free naked images of herself to exist, she could create them. This is why non-free images of BLPs are almost never allowed. SarahSV (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (added link SarahSV (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for explaining about the heading. Whenever I mention the image, the point is missed. It is not about who has discussed it. It is not about that. It is this: I do not see how "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
You are saying that Robin Thicke liked the image and wanted her to appear in his video. Okay. But I don't know why we have to see the image itself in the article to be able to understand that. That is what you have to argue to the satisfaction of independent image reviewers.
It is a non-free, professional image of a living person, an image with monetary value, so your argument would have to be a very strong one. I would like to know whether there are other recent, professional, non-free images of a living person, images with monetary value, that have been allowed in BLPs. SarahSV (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't see what you're describing in that image. I see a c. 20-year-old naked woman who has been professionally positioned and lit, and who has had her hair and make-up done by professionals. The image caused her to be picked to be one of several models in an unpleasant video.
But if it's as artistically important as you say, all the more reason for Wikipedia not to assume the right to use it. (And if the artistry is the issue, it would be more appropriate in the photographer's BLP, not the model's.) Can you point to any other professional portrait of a living person, a photograph that still has monetary value, for which we claim fair use in that person's BLP? SarahSV (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Tony, I'm not at all hard line when it comes to claiming fair use. But it seems obvious that the attraction of this image is that she's naked. That's a reason to avoid the image, not a reason to use it. We already have a free image of her, at roughly the same age. There is nothing about the naked image that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, or where "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Note: "of the article topic." SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't said anything about nakedness in the article, so I don't follow your point.

Again: the policy says that a non-free image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That naked image does not significantly increase my understanding of Emily Ratajkowski. Its omission would not be detrimental to my understanding of Emily Ratajkowski. We have a free image of her, so I already know what she looks like.

If you tell me that Robin Thicke invited her to be one of the models to feature in a video, after he liked a naked photograph of her, I can understand those words. I can look up the photograph in the source you provide, if I feel I need to see it.

You've written an article that is in large measure about the objectification of women. But Wikipedia should not be part of that objectification. We should describe it, not do it. SarahSV (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:POV
    arguing. Neither this article nor the song is about objectification of women. You have expressed that we should ignore the opposing view regarding the opposite side, which is reliably sourced by both a critic and an involved party. There are more sources, but this article is not the place for further sources. However, it is not a place where sources for the other side should be ignored as you suggest. If you would read the sources that you suggest we ignore, you would see that the song has much more content about liberating women than about objectifying them. If you would read the content that I have added to address Ratajkowski's brand of femism, you will see that she believes in a different kind of equality for women. She does not believe sex is either a service a woman provides to man or a thing that a man takes from a woman, but rather a mutually enjoyed experience. She does not believe that men should be able to censor women's expression of their sexuality (in music videos, photographs, art or what have you). You insist all nudity is objectification and that it can not be art or entertainment.
  • WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @TonyTheTiger: That sentence at the start of this remark (first paragraph, starting with SlimVirgin, You) is a personal attack. Please strike or remove it. The rest can stay, you are making a fine argument (except possibly the line where you remind Sarah what year it is, that's not very useful, I somehow suspect she knows what year it is) that doesn't need to be diluted by calling people names. I'd appreciate it if you struck or removed that sentence. I've pointed out so many sentences in Emily Ratajkowski itself that you have removed or rephrased that I feel justified in hoping you will similarly remove or rephrase this one in what is merely this FAC discussion. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to point to
        WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]


Comments from SlimVirgin

  • I'm sorry, but I have to oppose, for several reasons, mainly
    WP:FACR 1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and 4 (unnecessary detail) ... [remainder of post moved below]. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Tony has suggested that parts of my oppose aren't actionable. Because my earlier post has been broken up and may not be clear enough, I'm clarifying my oppose for the delegates.

  1. FACR
    1(a): "well-written: its prose is ... of a professional standard":
    The writing is problematic. One example:
    "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood.[147] ... She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement ... Planned Parenthood has presented Ratajkowski as a spokesperson for its birth control support.[150] Ratajkowski, is outspoken on her interest in going beyond speaking out in favor of birth control and using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality."[151]
    This has become time-consuming and no progress is being made, so I'm going to stop commenting for now. It's worth making clear that my primary objection is to the writing, per 1(a). There are problems throughout with grammar, punctuation, repetition and flow. Even issues that have been pointed out have not been fixed. In addition, there is unnecessary quoting, unnecessary clutter, and a promotional tone, which includes placing the opinions of the subject in Wikipedia's voice.
  2. FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources":
    It relies in part on tabloid sources and low-quality gossip sites, which violates
    WP:BLPSOURCES
    .
  3. FACR 1(d): "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias:
    The article seems promotional rather than a disinterested account of her life and work. For example, the first sentence notes that she made her name after appearing in the "
    WP:LEAD
    and an example of the article's promotional flavour. If there were just a few examples of this, I would try to fix them, but the same tone runs throughout the whole article.

  4. FACR 3: Non-free images must satisfy
    WP:NFCC
    :
    The use of the nude image strikes me as gratuitous. I don't see how it "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic." I've lost track of how the "subject of commentary" criterion is applied, but this is a professional image with monetary value, not to mention an example of the kind of image we ought not to add to biographies of women. It's just an essay, but please see Writing about women: avoid presenting women as "objects of heterosexual male appreciation."
  5. FACR 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail":
    There's a lot of unnecessary detail and quoting. It would benefit from that material and the lower quality sources being removed, then a rewrite to introduce a more disinterested tone. It would be shorter but better.

SarahSV (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Amended SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) [11][reply]

Tony, my first post was split up by your replies, and you're welcome to continue doing that below. But I'd like the above not to have replies added inside it, so I'm moving those here. SarahSV (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Re: point 1, lack of progress]:

  • WP:WAWARD) 15:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

[Re: point 3, neutrality]:

I am not averse to contextualizing this issue. I will not have much time between now and Tuesday to do so. I will definitely look at this on Tuesday, but am welcome to the suggestions of other editors to augment this issue. I am about to get back out on the road for
WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
When you say "this issue," I assume you mean the mention of the song/video in the first sentence. But that was just one example of the neutrality problems. Another example: in discussing her involvement with Planned Parenthood, you write: "She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." The source is an interview with her, where she is the one who says: "I had a lot of people who were like, ‘Wow that’s so brave of you.'". But this is repeated in Wikipedia's voice (and "gotten" needs to be changed). I think the problem is that, as you said somewhere, you're a big fan of hers, and this shows in the writing all the way through the article. SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Re: point 4, non-free image]:

I don't think your contention here is
WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
(I notice that several people who normally rail against non-free images are strangely absent or compliant when it comes to naked women.)
WP:FACR says of images: "Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content
..."
The latter policy (WP:NFCC) says: "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."
I don't see how using that image in this article fulfills that criterion, and I can't see any agreement, in the previous FACs, that it did. There were objections to the image in both FACs. The objection was left unresolved in the
WP:NON-FREE
.
The NFCC requirement – "would significantly increase readers' understanding" – has not been discussed that I can see. SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The prior FAC had two different image reviewers (
WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't see where the second FAC reached an agreement about that image. I can see where they discussed whether there had been commentary. But even if they had reached an agreement, this is a new FAC and a new objection. That the image has been questioned or opposed in all three FACs should give you pause.
FACR requires FACs to meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (NFCC). NFCC says: "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." That's the standard that has not been met, in my view, except in the empty sense that a naked image of any BLP subject might increase readers' understanding of them. SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The current version of this article has passed an image review above. Neither of us is an image reviewer. You might want to poke the image reviewer above or request a second opinion.--
WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Writing and citation style: The article needs a copy edit, but it's harder than usual to read in edit mode because there are so many references within sentences. This is sometimes unavoidable when handling sensitive or contentious material, but in this article I can't see a need for it.
Citation style?
WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I am open to any copyeditting assistance that may be availed.--
WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Quality of sources: Low-quality sources should be removed, including the Daily Mail. See
    WP:BLPSOURCES
    : "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." And FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."
  • WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • One last thing before I head out for a day of driving. In regard to this, runway modelling and print modelling each has four majors (like golf or tennis) in the same four cities (London, Milan, Paris and New York). These are the Fashion weeks and the
    WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Unnecessary detail: It seems to include everything that is known about her. Do we need to know how old her parents were when she was born and that they were not married? Same in the infobox: there's no point in adding that she has brown eyes and hair when we can see that from the photograph.
It is odd to discuss unnecessary detail as a complaint and then to point to standard inclusions in a biography. Note for a model, eye and hair color are important enough information for this persons occupation that that parameters exist for these items of data. For a model/actress, we can not go by the color in a picture because they often have to color their hair for roles and sometimes wear coloring contacts. For the average person, we may not care about their political affiliation, but we would not describe filling in that parameter as unusual for a politician. Similarly, for a model, physical attributes are common biographical summary elements. I don't know if this type of issue has led to
WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Furthermore, you have shown in this edit that you are aware of which parameters have been deprecated and which have not. Obviously, if the remaining parameters are not deprecated, they must serve the readers in a way that is desirable.--
WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Neutrality: She made her name from the Blurred Lines video, but no mention is made of how controversial that was. It's also very contentious to say in WP's voice that she's a feminist. Feminism is a broad church but not this broad; the Blurred Lines video could not be further removed from feminism. If she has said she regards herself as a feminist, we can consider quoting her, but with caution: it almost takes us into
    fringe
    territory, in the sense that we'd have trouble finding an opposing view simply because it's unlikely that anyone would have responded.
Please note I have added a quote in which she presents herself as a feminist.--
WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Ratajkowski's brand of feminism involves promoting female sexual empowerment and sexuality. I.e., a woman should be free to share her body in art, social activity, publicity, or private activity as she desires without shame. She has experienced the extreme opposite type of bodyshaming that feminists usually fight. Usually, it is the woman who strays from conventional attractiveness (maybe by being fat—possibly due to pregnancy, or life stress) that endures pressure. She has, by virtue of being almost the symbol of conventional attractiveness, been subject to pressure not to excite or arouse. Freely sharing her body in a music video is part and parcel to her brand of feminism. I will attempt to find some quotations to make this brand of feminism more clear to the reader. Feminist seek equal treatment for women. If guys can rap about women trying to get on their magicsticks and talk about their conquests, why can't a woman even express enjoyment of sexual expression. She feels women should be able to talk about sexual activity as freely as men and express their sexuality with no more restriction than men. I would enjoy guidance in taking the article in the direction of clarifying this to the reader.--
WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The opposing view would be that she personally serves, encourages, abets, enables, and profits from the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women. Not saying whether I agree or disagree with that myself, but Slim's list of sources pretty much say that, though they focus more on Blurred Lines than on Ratajkowski, so ideally we'd find sources that focused on her. --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the topic at issue whether "Blurred Lines" promotes the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women or Ratajkowki's life embodies support of the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women?--
WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Both. Specifically, we should present and summarize what reliable sources say, in proportion to what they say. Sarah gave four that focused on Blurred Lines, which is relevant considering how much of ER's article is directly or indirectly related to BL - it looks like maybe a third of the article. Here are a few more sources on ER specifically [13][14] but I can't guarantee they're the best, you really need to do a few searches on it yourself [15][16]. From my (very quick) searching, I see noticeably more sources supporting her as a sex-positive feminist than those attacking her as not a real feminist, but the other side does exist, so needs to at least be mentioned. Also, again, the criticism of BL is substantially more, and needs to be given. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I have the next 3 hours blocked out to try to address this issue a bit. I'm digging in now.--
WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, Boss and Tonic is not a
WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Tony has added that the subject claims to be a feminist. If a woman says she's a feminist, I normally accept it (even if I disagree with her view of it), but there has to be a limit. The subject says of this video that it is "not sexist." Factor in the lyrics: "I'm gon' take a / Good girl / I know you want it ... / I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two / ... Nothin' like your last guy, he too square for you / He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that."
Jezebel's response to Robin Thicke's claim that the song is feminist: "Susan B. Anthony. Germaine Greer. bell hooks. Robin Thicke. We thank these brave warriors for all their hard work."
We don't allow BLP subjects to say whatever they want about themselves. If there are sources discussing a contentious and self-aggrandizing claim, include the sources and explain why the claim might be problematic. For example, if an arguably racist person claimed be an anti-racism campaigner, we wouldn't include that claim without comment. If there are no independent sources discussing a contentious claim, it's better to leave it out. SarahSV (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, I am not going to haphazardly jump in and add this text. I have not looked at how it is handled in the article for the song. I hope that there is content there that I can just sort of summarize here.---
WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • General content and tone: The article pores over every detail of this very young woman's life and body, including her early sexualization (which made me very sad to read in the sources), with no awareness of the broader issues. Wanting to feature it on her birthday seems inappropriate for the same reason. In addition to that, we talk a lot about fixing the way women are represented on Wikipedia, but featuring this article would be a sprint in the wrong direction.
Are you saying that the article is deficient in contextualizing this biography amid broader issues?--
WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi Tony, my advice is that you take the article off your watchlist for a few weeks, then return to it with fresh eyes. I've been in a situation many times where I've been writing something intensely to the point that every factoid is precious. Not reading the article for a few weeks or months has usually helped (but it is always difficult for writers to see the article the way readers do).
Then remove the lower quality sources and the quotes, and try to rewrite the rest in a more disinterested tone. Add more about the controversy over Blurred Lines, including a mention in the lead. As I said above, if you do that, the article will be shorter, but it will be considerably better. And remove the nude image; it cheapens the page and it really isn't compatible with the policies. Remember that women are among your readers. Write the article so that they won't feel disappointed or excluded. SarahSV (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You've added to the lead: "despite being controversial for many reasons including its nudity, plagiarism, and its themes of both sexual degradation and sexual freedom." Who other than the people involved in it said that its theme was sexual freedom? The lyrics promote violence against women. You've also added: "The song is criticized as being sexist in its degradation of women. However, the purpose of the video was to use exaggeration to humorously approach sexual degradation." However, etc, in Wikipedia's voice. The problem is that you have a strong opinion about this that isn't the view of the mainstream media.
But to repeat: my main FAC objection is the way the article is written and sourced. SarahSV (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • We don't really know the year of association. I just removed the word as I proposed above.--
    WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments from General Ization

  • While I appreciate the efforts of
    sea of blue. The article clearly reflects a great deal of love on the part of its major contributors (my contributions being mostly reverting vandalism) for their subject – perhaps a little too much love for an encyclopaedic article. General Ization Talk 03:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from White Arabian Filly

Comments from Nightscream

Comment Thanks for contacting me, but I don't really know what the criteria are for FA. I do copyedit lots of articles, and did a few edits yesterday to the article, but don't have time for anything else right now. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
And what's the difference between those criteria and those for Good articles (of which I've written a few)? They read as mostly the same. In any event, I don't have time or interest to comprehensively read the article right now. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a good article is "good", then a featured article is "really, really good". :-) More seriously, one of the key differences is that you need one reviewer to mark something as a good article, and you need many reviewers to mark something as a featured article. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Figureskatingfan

Support. This article fits the criteria for FAs. Yes, it has a lot of detail, but I think it should, given the subject. Models are subject to this kind of detail, and much of what's included is connected to her profession and career. The sources aren't the most reliable, but again, these are the kinds of publications that write about models like Ratajkowski, so I think it's appropriate to include them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Usually, you put me through a lot of editorial hoops before supporting an FA and I know it is encouraged for reviewers to make suggested improvements before supporting. Feel free to make suggestions later. I hope a support without editorial guidance carries weight because I was under the impression that such reviews may be discounted.--
WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Chaheel Riens

I'd have to duplicate Nightscream's comments - I'm not much up on Featured/Good articles, but am quite willing to dip toes in and edit to improve articles - and would fully support concentrating on this one for a while to get it up to the required standards. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments from Ealdgyth

Oppose - prose issues and the non-free usage of the magazine cover.

Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive3&oldid=1138459473"