Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Thigh gap

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Thigh gap

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that a thigh gap is caused by genetics, and many girls cannot achieve it naturally due to their bone structure and genetic body make-up?

Created by Launchballer (talk), The Whispering Wind (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 10:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC).

  • It needs a picture, as if this goes through, that's what will be expected, or added very quickly.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There isn't a stub template on the page?--Launchballer 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk page. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I'm surprised this wasn't closed due to my non-response. I think it's start, but I'll have someone from WikiProject Fashion have a look at it.--Launchballer 10:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify the article as a stub, but there is certainly a lot of scope for expanding on the topic, using the cited news commentary. Article is new enough and already long enough for DYK. Citations are probably adequate (though I'd question the link to a model's Twitter account). Citations could do with being described more fully and accurately (I've amended the Observer and Guardian sources). Hook is factual and dry, rather than eye catching (though I was drawn to it because I evidently lead a sheltered life and had no idea this was a major phenomenon). The Times of India article is very interesting and so far under-used, for example it describes the particular genetics of Indian women. Its first line, "It's the body trend that's launched hundreds of blogs, Twitter IDs and memes in the west" has scope to underpin a more interesting hook - for example:
Alt 1 ... that the thigh gap is a recent body trend that has spawned hundreds of blogs, Twitter accounts and memes in the West?
Sionk (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Made a start on expansion and incorporated hook into text.--Launchballer 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs a second look by another DYK reviewer to make decision about Alt 1 hook. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
How about
  • ALT2: ... that the thigh gap has been called "risky and virtually impossible" by experts?
instead?--Launchballer 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The ALT2 hook actually points up a problem with the article: the thigh gap itself isn't risky and virtually impossible, but achieving it is—if you don't have it naturally, it's unlikely you can get your body to that point because of insufficiently wide hips or a normal amount of muscle in the thighs. So the presentation in the article (and in the ALT2 hook) is not accurately reflecting what the "experts" are saying. The article also has additional problems: the quote directly attributed to Mysko is actually Mysko stating what "experts believe"; by omitting that important qualification, the article effectively misrepresents what she's said. Generally, it isn't the "thigh gap" itself doing things, but the desire to achieve it and/or the genetic impossibility of same that's the issue. The article needs careful editing to accurately reflect its sources and just what the thigh gap is—it's a physical actuality. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed it.--Launchballer 08:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that achievement of the thigh gap has been called "risky and virtually impossible" by specialists? --Launchballer 08:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm taking a break from this until the QPQ is completed, since nothing can be approved without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The original hook looks best to me - I don't believe any hook including the words "thigh" and "girls" will lack views. Should that not be "women" though? Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion. I agree that, if the original hook is used, it should say "young women" rather than girls. The Daily Mail article talks about teenage obsession with the thigh gap and, outside of the headline, refers to them as young women. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
First, thank you to Matty.007 for reminding me about this. I don't know why it stopped appearing on my watchlist. QPQ has been  done.
ALT4: ... that a thigh gap is caused by genetics, and many young women cannot achieve it naturally due to their bone structure and genetic body make-up?--Launchballer 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to check the various outstanding hooks, and to see whether the earlier issues with the article have been fully addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This article has statements in need of citations and some of the sourcing is very tenuous. The assertion that thigh gaps are caused by genetics needs stronger sourcing. ALT4 seems to be sourced by a therapist's advice column and requires better sources. Characterizing a thigh gap as an "achievement" is also mildly problematic and brings up neutrality issues for the hook, given that it implies that it is a desired outcome. Gobōnobō + c 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ask any medical practitioner, never mind professional, and they will tell you that is the whole problem - that it IS a desired outcome! But that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Pull off, any better?--Launchballer 19:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The change in wording seems fine, but the sourcing issues remain. Baldly stating that 'thigh gaps are caused by genetics' needs a better source than an offhand comment of a single doctor. The advice column source is of questionable reliability and speaks to larger referencing problems with the entire article. Given that this article seems to make health claims related to extreme dieting, the stricter referencing requirements of WP:MEDRS probably applies. Gobōnobō + c 19:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, I rarely edit medical articles so in short, could you annotate the unreliable references? The one I've just added seems fine.--Launchballer 20:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Womenfitness.net is a reliable source for health-related claims. Gobōnobō + c 20:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find them - I've asked Allen3 if he can weigh in. I'm tempted to remove it, mind.--Launchballer 21:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what assistance you are hoping I can provide in locating additional high quality sources. My primary area of contribution has been in 19th and early 20th century political figures of the American West with emphasis on the political history of Arizona Territory. For a topic such as this, all I can do is point you to the information at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Specialized search engines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources. You might also wish to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as the information you seek is at least partially within their field of expertise. --Allen3 talk 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This comment is why I asked you, I clearly didn't check the link properly. I'll ask the WikiProject.--Launchballer 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, I have. Interestingly, they say it's more of a fashion subject. Over this weekend I'm visiting my local library.--Launchballer 13:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, it's been eleven days since your last edit to the article and post here, and two weekends have passed. Will you have the necessary information and referencing soon? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, looks like I forgot about this completely. Friday I have an INSET day - in the morning, remind me then.--Launchballer 15:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Source replaced.--Launchballer 01:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • New reviewer needed. This nomination is over two and a half months old, and needs a final review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll pick this up as I recall thinking that this would make a good topic when I saw some press coverage. Detailed review to follow. Andrew (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've had a good look at this topic and slept on it and reckon it is best to decline promotion as the topic is problematic in several ways. It is so new that there don't seem to be any significant sources more than a year old and the sources that do exist all seem to be shallow journalism or hype. The topic will probably mature as better sources accumulate and so we will then have a historical perspective, as we do for a similar topic like wasp waist. Until then, we shouldn't give the topic undue weight by putting it on our front page as, by doing so, we would promote the idea by giving it publicity. The concept seems harmful to both mind and body so we would be culpable if we added to the buzz. See Bikini bridges and thigh gaps for some commentary on the way that even hand-wringing accounts contribute to the problem.
If you want a technical reason for declining then note that "the hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness." But we don't seem to have any well-established facts yet - just a cloud of hype, opinion and speculation. We should also consider WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEO which indicate that the topic has some way to go before we should highlight it.
So, sorry to be the bad guy, but I will make amends by watching the article and improving it myself. Perhaps it might get a second chance as and when it becomes a GA. Andrew (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This nomination has been open for nearly three months, and in the six days since Orlady made the above comment there has been little done to revise the article in the manner that she feels would allow it to qualify for DYK. Furthermore, the article has a copyedit template. If major progress has not been made by the three-month mark on February 12, 72 hours from now, the nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
When I saw Andrew Davidson's cross, I thought it was all over. I only stopped to check that it had been closed when I tapped "Template:Did you know nominations/" into the Wikipedia search bar looking for something else! Orlady, thank you for throwing me a lifeline on this. I have incorporated all the refs Orlady has given (two of them were the same article), removed the Mail as a source, and added at least one sentence attached to each new source that pertains to its social impact. Hopefully it doesn't read too messily - how's it looking now?--Launchballer 00:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph of "Background" (which begins "There are two ways of achieving a thigh gap") is not appropriate. It resembles medical advice, but the pseudo-medical content is not reliable. Please revise the article to focus on fascination with "thigh gaps" as a social phenomenon. Information about why thigh gaps are unattainable for most women (in contrast to advice on how to achieve one) can be presented in the form of statements from observers of the situation, but it must not be presented in a manner that makes it resemble medical advice. --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Rejigged to show as 'causes'.--Launchballer 08:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That wording change still presents the "information" as medical advice. If the concerns about this article could be fixed by tweaking one or two words, you'd better believe that I (or an earlier DYK reviewer) would have done that a long time ago. The article needs to be recast as an article about a social phenomenon that has aroused public health concerns. Wikipedia should not be quoting or citing the Times of India, Feminine Contour Publishing, Huffington Post, and other news media sources as authorities on human biology. --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I've taken out the most blatant medical advice, but what needs to be removed/reworded? Incidentally, there are references available on the German and Dutch Wikipedias. If you know any editors who speak those languages, it'd be obliged.--Launchballer 10:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Much improved. I'll take a more thorough look soon. --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced it's ready. Some of the recent changes have taken out objective information about causes and effects. This is an article about human anatomy, and it should have reliable sources from a biological point of view. Jonathunder (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to rejig the article to discuss it as a social phenomenon, per Orlady's instruction.--Launchballer 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In doing so, you made some bold edits to the article. I reverted, as I disagreed. Now we should discuss. (You reverted back, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. I'll just note that the current version is disputed.) Let's work on this on the talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia should not be making factual statements about human biology without support from medically credible reliable sources. Popular media don't qualify! --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Good sources are needed, I agree. Jonathunder (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. The thigh gap has been discussed only in social media and largely not by doctors - they only discuss it in context of eating disorders, very rarely do they discuss them on their own. Therefore, this article should be presented as the social phenomenon it is and not as a medical topic.--Launchballer 08:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Article tagged for neutrality problems (undue weight in specific); can't be approved per criterion 4a ("Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy"). --Jakob (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The supposed neutrality "issue" is a red herring, due to people who think no article on this topic should exist unless it can focus on providing objective information on the biology of thigh gaps. --Orlady (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not an accurate reading of anything we've said, and it is certainly not an assumption of good faith. There are multiple problems with this article. Let's discuss that on the talk page, please. Jonathunder (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you tagged the article as unbalanced, but the only discussion you have provided of your reasoning is here. On this page, you said "This is an article about human anatomy, and it should have reliable sources from a biological point of view." I fully agree that the article lacks the kind of sourcing that would be required for an article about human anatomy. However, the topic of "thigh gap" can be covered without treating it as a topic of human anatomy. The general idea is that (1) the notion of a thigh gap is something that somehow has seeped into the popular consciousness and (2) concerns have been expressed about the implications of this phenomenon for public health. There are additional details related to both of these main points, of course. The whole thing can be written without presenting any factual or pseudo-factual statements about the biological basis for this gap. (However, people who aren't necessarily medical experts can be cited as making statements to the effect that thigh gaps are rare, that some published images of thigh gaps are probably photo-shopped, that they are concerned that girls might starve themselves in attempt to achieve this gap, etc.) --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've got a bad feeling about this, but I've reverted the rejection. There are no neutrality issues, according to Orlady; the topic can be covered without the medical advice! It's a social phenomenon article. I can't sort it out tomorrow; if you look at my userpage, you will notice that my mother recently died. Her funeral is being held tomorrow, so I won't be online for most of it. Please note down exactly what is required for what I get back.--Launchballer 23:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I still reckon we should nix this. The very definition of the topic seems debatable. Currently the article relies for this upon Hugh, Camille (June 30, 2013). "What is the thigh gap?". The Thigh Gap Hack: The Shortcut to Slimmer, Feminine Thighs Every Woman Secretly Desires. The Feminine Contour Publishing. but that book is self-published and, as the author/publisher is in the slimming business, it seems too promotional for our purposes. The article has been given over three months now but still hasn't made the grade and is, if anything, going backwards. Andrew (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, point taken. I've checked, the reference in the next sentence covers the definition so I've just flat out taken that reference.--Launchballer 20:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a meme or neologism, and not a social "phenomenon". It may be OK as a blog entry, and it's easy these days to create something like this that goes instantly viral, but I think this neologism is just too biased to appear on the main page in its current state. People talk about all sorts of nonsense all the time. By creating the buzz word, the status of those self-styled "experts" trying to relate it to fashion trends, low self-esteem or eating disorders etc. is thereby elevated. Sure, the subject can be discussed, just like dieting, anorexia and bulimia, but I think article development will need a lot of time and the benefit of hind-sight. Breast size is another common pre-occupation, yet it redirects to 'brassiere measurement'. Go figure. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that the page should be deleted or redirected, that's a topic for WP:AFD, not for discussion here. --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I recommend reading this before sending it to AfD.--Launchballer 10:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously this would require the permission of the respective authors Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I love that idea! I've put a note on OFWF's DYK nomination page linking it here. That article is, in my opinion, long enough, new enough, QPQ done, I see no copyvios. I can't approve the hook for obvious reasons.--Launchballer 12:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I was passing on this idea, mainly because of the current wording, and that my alternate hook involved noting that the "Five Reasons I'm Glad Paul Walker is Dead" blogger fell for the Free bleeding hoax. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Ohconfucious withdrew the AfD. What needs to be done to this article?--Launchballer 20:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Since my original hook got tagged as a BLP violation, I have no choice but to concede and incorporate it into here. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair point - good idea.--Launchballer 13:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Much better! I would like to suggest that we agree this as it can still be improved by the Royal Society meeting (if they have reliably sourced info). Thanks Crisco. Victuallers (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid no one took this on at the RS editathon. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thigh gap still has a POV tag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

During the course of reviewing this article, I extensively edited it in part because of some of the concerns mentioned above. This article is about a notable cultural phenomenon that has recently evolved primarily in the west. Therefore, including a biological aspect in the article is at best too early, but because the subject is clearly notable as a cultural phenomenon the article is on solid grounds. The last ALT proposed by Crisco 1492 is fine and somehow seems to really fit the article. As I see it, it is good to go now. I am One of Many (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this and it still does not seem acceptable for the front page. For example, the citation which supports the opening definition is this: Chandrasekharan, Gitanjali (31 October 2013). "Why thigh gap is so important to women". The Times of India. Retrieved 7 November 2013. This is said to be from the Times of India, which sounds very grand. When you look closely, you find that the source was actually the Mumbai Mirror — a tabloid from the same publisher that leads online with "Bollywood News" and "Ask the Sexpert". The doctor quoted in that source is a plastic surgeon who regularly operates on women to remove fat from their thighs. This person therefore has a significant conflict-of-interest when discussing this hype.

The lead image is equally unsatisfactory. It seems be a random image taken from Flickr and its description makes no mention of thigh gaps or anything like it. To my eye, the women seems to be bending her knees and so it is debatable whether this is an archetypal thigh gap or not. Use of this image seems to be original research because no independent authority has certified it as being accurate. In using this image, we're no better than the sites which post pictures of such women and then argue about the quality of their gap. Note also that the woman is stated to be a professional model. Have we asked her permission to use her image in this way? Note that the image was taken in France where they have strict privacy laws.

Andrew (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out the Times references and both the images.--Launchballer 10:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have put one back and the Times reference which seems a fairly balanced article to me. The picture has now been nominated for deletion at Commons. The article ought to have a picture and it was not chosen at random, it was the only one that I could find on Commons that wasn't of a nearly naked woman and does appear to demonstrate the subject though I acknowledge the possible slight knee bend. The fact that this was evidently a professional model was an advantage as it supported the assertion that normal women would have a great deal of difficulty actually creating a thigh gap. If you can find a better picture, please put it in. There ought to be one somewhere as this is a real thing and not just an internet meme or something like that. This is one possibility under a fair use claim as these models really do seem to have one and the whole thing seems to have started at this fashion show. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think an image or two would be good for the article, but not essential. The article is about a cultural phenomenon, which isn't essentially biological in nature. I don't think that the image you linked to would qualify as fair use since it is a picture of many living people and it isn't absolutely essential for the article. Otherwise, I see no reason to hold this article back. I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed it's a cultural phenomenon but it's also a real thing and some women do have one. I won't speculate whether that is a result of genetics, exercise or extreme dieting (or all three!). Philafrenzy (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed it's real too (especially after the Target photoshopping incident) and an image would be nice, but my main point is that we shouldn't hold up this article in the DYK process any longer waiting for a free image that likely isn't available now. I am One of Many (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • How about this hook?
Alt 6 ... that some women have resorted to surgery to achieve a thigh gap?

--I am One of Many (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from the medical aspects of this article. Even the better sources in it seem to be based largely based on fashion gossip sites and the like. If you want hits I would suggest " .... that the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show has been credited with causing a worldwide quest amongst women to obtain a thigh gap" or abandon this one altogether. The whole article is still highly problematical and the sources numerous but not strong. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Call me daft, but what was wrong with ALT5?--Launchballer 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should be linking to this article at all on the main page IMHO. It only has two paragraphs followed by a list of the opinions of people who are paid to have opinions. We need to do our job first by synthesizing all that into a proper article first. It's just not good enough for DYK right now. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Just noting that, at this point, Thigh gap is only eligible via April Fools; it has long passed its "sell date" for regular DYK. I'm therefore removing it from the main DYK page, and it will only be available there, as are other as-yet-unapproved April Fools DYKs. If it isn't approved before April 1, then its time will have run out. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Given some of the connotations of this article (including unnecessary surgery and eating disorders) I don't think it is suitable for April Fools either! Philafrenzy (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you know ... that it's a great idea to starve oneself to achieve a thigh gap? April Fools!
Precisely. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Of the following sources, please could you tell me which are reliable and which are not:
[1][2][3][4][5][6]
In my opinion 4) 5) and 6) are reasonable but none of them appear to have original content, mostly just scraping together other sources, including press agencies life AFP, into an article. We need to beware of articles that merely combine other articles into a slightly different version and then are themselves used as a source for another article and ultimately as a source for our article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, why is surgery.org blacklisted? I've tried to add it but it won't let me.--Launchballer 16:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we have this interview in USA Today, linked to in one of the above (Medical daily). That seems a decent RS. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It does. Of course, it's an Associated Press report originally, not USA today original reporting. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
:I like the way that the article has been restructured. How about a completely non-controversial that has subtle humour to it such as:
Did you know ... that thigh gaps have received widespread coverage?
I am One of Many (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is more the issue than the hook - it was agreed that Operation Fourth Wave Feminism be merged with this nomination. I agree, the restructuring is good - thanks Philafrenzy.--Launchballer 22:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the subject is well suited to any form of humour. I can't imagine a humorous DYK about anorexia for instance. The picture is still a problem. It might be too glamorous. Unfortunately we seem to have mostly half naked pictures of women on Commons. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, those with the legs covered make the thigh gap smaller and thus you're cutting down the number of images available. I like this image: [7].--Launchballer 22:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't show the knees so we don't know if they are touching. This might be the most suitable actually but it's a bit shocking (includes nudity and not the good sort!): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anorexia_case_1900.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philafrenzy (talk • contribs)
Erm, Wikipedia isn't censored, but can we check there aren't any more modern equivalents?--Launchballer 23:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
This one's fully clothed. [8]--Launchballer 23:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That could work on a fair use claim. It's nicely unglamorous. What this tells us is how uncommon that pose is and how few women actually have a thigh gap apart from the ones suffering from anorexia. I would propose using your image at the top in the place of the existing one and the anorexic woman further down? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem.--Launchballer 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy if you think that the article should not be associated with any type of humour, then it should not be in April fools day. I only suggested the hook above as a blandly humours hook that could be appropriate for this DYK since it is still open in April fools day. If one person finds any hook non-humours, then others will as well, so it would be best to close this DYK template as unpromoted.
  • Regarding the image, I really don't like any of them. I think we should leave an image out for now because we really can't determine from the sources what a prototypical thigh gap is. We can't just represent it by an anorexic woman because it is not always associated as such according to the sources. Apparently, some women may have surgery done to achieve one. Since we don't know, some women may have a thigh gap naturally, so we don't want to just associate a thigh gap with being anorexic. Let's wait and see if good articles come out in the future with images of the phenomenon and then we can find similar free ones. I am One of Many (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with leaving the anorexic image out, it was only to suggest what could go wrong, but the first image suggested by Launchballer seems fine to me. I am fairly sure that it is what these women are seeking. We have the fashion show image to guide us? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I think the original image is the closest to the published images used to illustrate the phenomenon so I'm ok with it. I am One of Many (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You mean this one? Philafrenzy (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant the one currently in the article shoot in Paris, 22 September 2012.jpg. I am One of Many (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, what about a fair use of the fashion show image (it could be cropped a bit). That was where it all started so it seems valid? Philafrenzy (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the image will be kept on commons. If it is kept as a free image, another image could be created that leaves out the context and the model's face. We then wouldn't have to worry about the association of a living person with a controversial subject. Even though if kept, the image would be fair to use in the article, cropping it might just be the right thing to do. So, I would definitely support you on that. I am One of Many (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to use the IBTimes image because it better illustrates the thigh gap, does not have bent knees and is completely covered.--Launchballer 10:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the existing picture (which I originally added) pending consensus. The article is getting over 1000 hits per day and I think there is a risk that we are seen as glamourising the subject with the existing choice. Revert me if you think I am wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, I think you did the right thing, especially given the number of hits. The problem I have with the IBTimes image is that it doesn't appear representative of the images I see in the other sources. I looked through all the sources we have in the article and generally, the thigh gaps are not so big. Many don't indicate whether the knees are touching. They are shown with models as well. I like the idea of cropping down the image (just removed by Philafrenzy) as suggested by Philafrenzy. That image has a thigh gap more representative of the thigh gaps I see in the sources and it is a model. So, my order of preference would be (1) Philafrenzy's suggest crop of the French model image, (2) no image at all, or the (3) IBTimes image. I am One of Many (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not comfortable using an image with bent knees but if you two are in agreement, then I am happy to stand aside.--Launchballer 09:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I notice that Jonathunder has added the cropped image to the article. What else needs to be done to it?--Launchballer 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I straightened it. It's not ideal as it should really be from the waist down to the feet and include a erect pose, but I suppose it will do for the time being. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Not bad! Perhaps not ideally posed, but she really does have a thigh gap I am One of Many (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I did a new less cropped version from the waist down to the feet which makes the stance clearer and prevents it looking like she is lying on a bed. It looks fine on Commons but is deformed in the article (too wide) any idea why that is? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I put a pixel parameter in and set it to 150px and I think it looks pretty good. I am One of Many (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I think there is consensus (at least implied) that this article is not appropriate for an April fools article, but now that Philafrenzy has reorganized the article, added a nicely cropped image, and the article is receiving about 1000 hits a day, why is it not now appropriate for a main-page DYK (assuming we can settle on a hook)? I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

it has long passed its "sell date" for regular DYK

— BlueMoonset
Fair enough. I am One of Many (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
ALT7 ... that the thigh gap has been berated for its "completely inept command of the English language"?--Launchballer 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Not bad for April fools. I am One of Many (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that quote in the article. It makes no sense to "berate" a physical condition for nonfluent use of English. Jonathunder (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that is suppose to be the April fools part of it. When a reader begins to read the article, they will think like you "this makes no sense" and then they realise it is April 1. I am One of Many (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The Main Page on April 1 allows for humor but not nonsense. All of the content is supposed to be verifiable as that is still a core principle. Jonathunder (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hooks still need to be sourced in the article, and a non-existent quote is not valid. You'll have to check with @Crisco 1492: on the "berate" issue; I'm no expert on April Fools, but I'd imagine that Jonathunder is correct in his objection, especially if it isn't in the article either. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The suggested hook was a quote from a review of the book Thigh Gap Hack that I removed in favour of a better quote from the same source. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've reinstated the original quote in addition to the new one. I actually read Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Rules before forming the hook and that's how I arrived at it.--Launchballer 03:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me like it follows the rules for an April Fool's DYK. I think we should go with it. I am One of Many (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It was the author of a book about the thigh gap who was criticized for "her completely inept command of the English language". It would be equally inept to use this latest hook which says a space between the legs is "berated" for its lack of language. Of course it isn't a cunning linguist. Jonathunder (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of an April Fool's DYK hook is to make a statement which sounds unbelievable. Looking at it now, that hook was inspired by this one.--Launchballer 08:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as Philafrenzy has now taken out the quote:
ALT8: ... that the thigh gap symbolises "the ideal body shape"?
Or, remembering that it was agreed that Operation Fourth Wave Feminism was to be merged with this one:
ALT9: ... that the bikini bridge was reported to be the new thigh gap?--Launchballer 12:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The first quote included was part of general comments by the reviewer while the current quote states specifically what she things is wrong with the book and is therefore much stronger. But isn't this DYK dead by now? I think this thread should be closed in favour of a new thread on the the talk page for further discussion of the article? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In terms of interestingness, I like Crisco 1492's hook suggestion from March 3 the best, although ALT 6 is also interesting. I would also say that ALT 7 is nonsense and should be struck out. But I'm no longer sure what the main sticking point is. Is it the article or the hook that's problematic? --Jakob (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's now the hook because of Philafrenzy's restructuring of the article. I also like Crisco's hook.--Launchballer
These are all terrible: it's a ridiculous concept and deserves to have that made abundantly clear. Back to the original bold alt proposed by Victuallers. — LlywelynII 16:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is not developed into a reasonable good article that receives over 1000 hits a day. The hook is the only obstacle and Back to the original bold alt is appropriate and not controversial. I am One of Many (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good idea.--Launchballer 19:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • April Fools Day is past, and the article was not promoted. It cannot be held over for another year, and as I noted a couple of weeks ago, it's far too late for an appearance as a regular hook. Closing as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thigh_gap&oldid=1022742414"