Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Emily Ratajkowski/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emily Ratajkowski

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept First off I want to acknowledge that there are issues with this article and that they should not be ignored. However delisting requires issues related to the criteria. The prose issues listed are really quite nitpicky and are clear and concise enough. Neutrality concerns are more concerned with the uses of nudity and sexuality in the article, but don't say why this makes the article non-neutral. If mentions of her in reliable sources talk about her nudity and sexuality then it would not be non-neutral of us not too. Citation overkill is a problem, but not a GA issue and not necessarily original research. Focus is probably the strongest case for delisting. However, the article is not overly long and nothing mentioned is not related to Ratajkowski. Meeting the GA criteria is not particularly onerous and it has not been convincingly demonstrated that this fails it. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I’m proposing delisting this article, Emily Ratajkowski, from Good Article status until further notice because I see a lot of issues here: original research, promotional tone, and citation overkill are chief among them.Trillfendi (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, I can't find any text missing citations. Can you list some specific examples of original research? It would especially help for anybody else reading this GAR looking for ways to improve the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One example, which I removed before listing this article (maybe I should put it back), was someone doing original research to find an acting role she did as a child. They made a note of it between citations. I also believe a lot of info about her mother possibly contains original research.Trillfendi (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean this "Elsa" role, then good removal. Whoever inserted that didn't even really try to properly cite it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I'd say this is ludicrously over-cited—this biography of a very minor figure has more citations than Spain, Elizabeth II or United States Army. I agree it's bloated, promotional, and overly long, but I can't actually see which of the GA criteria it's actually failing. ‑ Iridescent 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it’s failing in neutrality, verifiability without original research, and being well written.Trillfendi (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is definitely subpar. Here are some examples of tone I found that come off as promotional:

  • "Esquire magazine named Ratajkowski 'Woman of the Year', over online fan vote finalist Jennifer Lawrence"..... why does the other finalist need to be mentioned?
  • "Ratajkowski leveraged her sudden prominence into supporting roles in major films"..... not only is "sudden prominence" questionable at best, but this just reads awkwardly to begin with
  • "this tour marked her ascension as a style icon as she earned multiple best dressed citations from various sources"..... "icon" is puffery, and why do such rankings really matter anyway?
  • "prominent global media outlets took notice"..... I think it's obvious what's wrong here
  • "She noted that by July 2017, her sex appeal, especially her cleavage, has caused her to lose jobs"..... "sex appeal" is a matter of personal opinion

Feel free to list any other problematic instances you spot. That's not even delving far into sheer quality of writing. I also feel including File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg is borderline promoting Treats! and the caption for File:Emily Ratajkowski.jpg doesn't really need to talk about what the photo shoot was for, simply a year is sufficient. Do we REALLY need to advertise her bags with File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg? Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are other instances that I had noticed that I believe may be original research about her early life (and it isn’t even about her): this book and this obituary which I’m quite certain we’re not allowed to use but then again it might be considered public record. If someone can find more independent, reliable sources then I strongly recommend that her mother and father have their own respective articles. I had also removed a statement about her childhood that was sourced with what looks like absolute gibberish.Trillfendi (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, certainly; just skimming the lead there's a glaring piece of original research in "British American" in the infobox. Britain doesn't have Jus soli unless at least one parent already had either British citizenship or Indefinite Leave to Remain, and there's no indication that either was the case. (Given the dual taxation issues it would be unlikely someone at her presumed level of earnings would maintain dual citizenship even if she did qualify to apply for British citizenship.) ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know this article clearly has a feminist agenda (on the neutrality front) but I struggle to understand how over 20 mentions about nudity and over 20 mentions about sexuality are encyclopedic. Many fashion models pose nude just as often as her without an eyelash batted. As an editor, my niche is fashion model articles and I can’t recall seeing nudity even mentioned once in any other model’s Wikipedia article. Ratajkowski is not a human sexuality scholar, expert, or doctor, so why are her views on the subject taken as such in this article? She has more citations about her sexuality views than actual professionals who have written medical journals on it! (Look at pages in the Sex educators category to see what I mean) Trillfendi (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am probably still the main editor of this article, I don't understand the point of counting uses. Depending on the subject matter of an article some subjects arise more than others. Suppose I write an article about a basketball player and use the word dunk a lot more than is often seen in an article about a basketball player. That does not mean there is anything amiss. Nudity is a subject that will be mentioned in an article about Ratajkowski. I am just disappointed that her arrest had nothing to do with nudity. I think she should have done a Lady Godiva-type protest instead of this run of the mill getting arrested a bunch of other people. Sorry, I digress. I am not going to humor you with a look at this article based on word usage counts. Nothing short of using profane words would warrant such an analysis.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I not mention her 2019 arrest in this article?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the promotional word that is being thrown around. As far as overly cited goes, many biographies I have worked on have been criticized in this regard. They have been mostly about basketball players. I have my own philosophy on citations, and I don't really agree that finding articles with fewer citations is a sensible argument. IMO, that is just pointing to other deficient articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prime example of the absurd level of link rot:
      • “John David "J.D."[1][2] Ratajkowski,[3]” was all in the middle of one sentence and including the 5 other citations in thay sentence. Ridiculous! It’s all but common sense that if one or two sources can verify something, you don’t need 8. Or the 7 citations about her ethnicity in a row, when that’s already previously addressed in 2 earlier citations.
        • Please don't sound a link rot alarm and then demonstrate three perfectly fine references. It tries my patience and causes me to pay less attention to the rest of what you are saying. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the three references. Link rot is when you add a link that becomes a dead url. As live urls become dead the term is rot. You are not talking about link rot. I am not going to keep reading the rest of this point because you just don't know what you are talking about and it is a waste of time to talk to someone who doesn't know how to discuss Wikipedia editorial issues on such a basic level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • TonyTheTiger When I said link rot I thought I'd put citation overkill, oh omniscient one, but at that point I was too tired to give a damn. Shit happens. If one source says his nickname is J.D. (Emily calls him John when referring to him as an artist,[1] but anyway...) I still stand by my view that one was sufficient. This is Wikipedia's example of citation overkill:"Elephants are large[1] land[2] mammals[3] ... Elephants' teeth[4] are very different[4] from those of most other mammals.[3][4] Unlike most mammals,[3] which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth,[4] elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire lives.[4]"; it's not much different than "Emily O'Hara Ratajkowski was born on June 7, 1991, in Westminster, London, the only child[6] of Kathleen Anne Balgley[7] with Irish and Polish Jewish roots[8][9] and John David "J.D."[10][11] Ratajkowski,[12] with Polish roots.[13]" 8 citations for one sentence. The same sentence could still be cited with 1/4th of that.Trillfendi (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, about this feminist lilt. Quite frankly I don’t care that she does nudity or is a feminist, it’s the way it’s written. I started counting because it seemed like every 10th word was nudity, nude, or sexuality. Can we just chainsaw this down to 5 quotes on the matter? I mean even in her early life section I had to remove what looked to be original research on the matter. One could take suggestions from Emma Watson’s article on how to write about her feminist beliefs, neutrally, or Jennifer Lawrence’s.
      • And anyone with keen eyesight can tell she’s attractive, heck Adriana Lima is also always at the top of “sexiest” lists but even her page doesn’t have all these “curvaceous”, “stunningly beautiful”, and what not adjectives. Isn’t that a POV issue?Trillfendi (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also have a lack of understanding of what WP:OR means. When you remove well-sourced content and describe it as removal of OR, that further undermines your credibility. I am going to have to restore that again and hope you can at some point learn basic WP WP:MOS terminology.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When someone went out of their way to find information about her family without giving independent, reliable sources—it’s original research. So I’m not going to sit here and watch you try to justify it or change the meaning of original research. Common sense! And don’t try to deflect your logical fallacies toward me; who cares about my “credibility” when I’m not a professional biographer, I’m just a person who sees issues with this article and brought them up. Since you’re so personally in it then address it!Trillfendi (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content that seems to be at issue has WP:ICs from WP:RS, which is the point.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why reinsert original research? Unnecessary.Trillfendi (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to talk to you. You have been on WP for nearly 5 years but only have about 3000 edits and seem not to understand anything. When I say it is content that has WP:ICs from WP:RS, that means it is not WP:OR. Please learn what OR is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of communcation skills are for you to address within yourself. I’ve been on Wikipedia “5 years” (4 years since you’re counting) because I began making random edits in 2014 and 2015. If you care so much, evidently you do to have looked at the contributions, I didn’t give a crap whatsoever about editing until mid-2016 that’s why there are only ~3,000 edits. I don’t consecrate my life to Wikipedia to have made over 369,000 edits 🙄. Now, I had clearly pointed out, and someone else concurred, that searching obituaries to find family information related to her grandma, an obituary Emily is not even mentioned in, and looking for books (one that is impossible to otherwise find unless they took her class) that were NOT referenced in previously stated citations could constitute original research; let alone the fact that the article is not about them. I also recommended creating separate pages for Dr. Kathleen Balgley and John Ratajkowski with some of the information given and to find reliable sources for other info. And I already said I had removed some citations because of the very reason you mentioned, inline citations and reliable sources, so we really don’t need 3:1 for somebody’s name and ethnicity. Stop trying to make this about me. If that early life section looked more like how it did in 2014-mid 2018 there wouldn’t be an issue to speak of. It was IP,IP, and IP users who made those edits so I don’t get why you’re the one getting so defensive about a page you don’t own. (That LA Confidential source was sufficient).Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the presentation of diff links in this comment are the proper way to show diffs. this is edit is not so bad. Obituaries are considered reliable sources for some facts, but not others because of the reduced editorial procedures. I am not so high on the blockquote, but could take or leave the additional citation content. this content is not something I would pursue, but if we have it, it is a positive rather than a negative. this content is borderline excessive. However, it is encyclopedic content in the article for the mother if someone wants to create that. I am not sure if it would pass WP:GNG however. Finding WP:RS is never considered WP:OR no matter how WP:CRUFTy the content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what content you think fails WP:V.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other articles reject obituaries of grandparents. Anywho, I'm going to keep pointing it out. You cannot find this kind of information about her ancestry without unmitigated original research. Point blank. Someone even went looking back to the 1800s A substantial amount of information about her mother is already in that New York Times piece, and that's really all we need to know isn't it. Being a Fulbright scholar is admirable, I get it, but why are people searching deep through the bowels of Al Gore's Internet for her schoolbooks (unless they took her class; a book not mentioned in any of those citations at all), what dates she taught classes, and her ancestors etc. Her CV shouldn't take up a section about her daughter, that doesn't happen in any other article. Emily simply said "she's an English professor" and it should just be left at that. Example: If you look at Gisele Bündchen's early life, her father is also a professor but there aren't any excruciating details. She's the most famous Brazilian export next to cane sugar but even Brazilian media don't go this far even when they interview him. When you google "Margaret Balgley" you get 21 results of private information.Trillfendi (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way on the obit content. If you really care you can chop that, but I would rather a third party other than you or I give an opinion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely does not meet GA standards; to be frank, it resembles an obsessive fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. For one, it's way too long and detailed. It seems to list every single thing that this person has ever done, without any consideration for what is relevant. Furthermore, one gets the impression that Ratajkowski is a major figure in Western culture, instead of a model/social media influencer/starlet that has garnered some media attention in the previous five years and is mostly remembered as the girl in the "Blurred Lines" video. The language of the article is weasel-y and nowhere near neutral. Looking at TonyTheTiger's previous interactions regarding this article and his replies here, it does not seem that he handles criticism well. My suggestion would be to not only downgrade the article, but for TonyTheTiger to take a break from editing it and allow neutral editors to heavily edit it to meet encyclopedic standards. Quality, not quantity is the key word here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

As a outside observer and one who does not wish to engage in anything further then this comment; it seems like the problem people have is with the subject themselves and their personal opinion that her status in culture does not require a full biography. People have to face the fact that "social media" people are the "it group" of this century. It's all just nitpicking. The nom even reveals bias in their obsession with her feminist views; it's frankly insulting to suggest that her views or work should not deserve adequate information. Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin's articles can be nitpicked in the same exact way. How are you supposed to build a adequate article on a 21st century figure with these types of critiques? Are they supposed to be stubs until the 23rd century? How was Marilyn's playboy photoshoot included in her article for some time without the controversy that the Treats photoshoot got? Oh yeah, perceived historicity by the reflection of time; it's not ludicrous to treat modern subjects with the same detail as long dead people. People like PewDiePie, Kim Kardashian, Jenna Jameson, Miranda Kerr, Conor McGregor, Avicii, and Nicki Minaj and their respective fields are going to be the seen as representative of this century and it's reductive to say participants of such are not allowed to be anything other then a stub while "neutral" editors can fix it. You could nitpick anything; let's use Monroe; without the hyper sensationalism and tabloid coverage of her; she's only a popular actress who worked for a decade as top billing; why is her article so detailed? All because Bündchens article sucks should not mean anything either. To call this page a obsessive fanpage is flat out insulting to the editors who have tried their best with what they had. GuzzyG (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: I have no problem with her feminist views (newsflash, I consider myself one too and I’m not “obsessed” with anything about her unlike this TonytheTiger character who... well it goes without saying. But I wouldn’t even point that out. I’ve probably made less than 5 edits to this article at all. Taking 5 seconds to point out something isn’t an obsession.) or her status in Hollywood. I’ve been knowing who she was since her iCarly days, that has nothing to do with how I perceive this article lacking in “good article” quality for the reasons I stated at the jump. (Side note:Take a look at the Talk page and Archive 1, you will see people from months or years ago pointing out exactly the type of problems I did). After a few paragraphs or so, if you actually read this thing, it couldn’t be more apparent. As I had said, take a look at Emma Watson and see how it’s written objectively on that subject. Then compare. I’m willing to at least attempt to address the many issues on this article but clearly it will be rebuffed because the “obsessed” people think they have a copyright the article. I said nothing of the quality of Bündchen’s article, I said that people don’t go through incredible lengths for her family’s employment history when the article is about her and her modeling career. For the majority of this article’s history these problems weren’t even there and it wasn’t a stub. She doesn’t need tabloid coverage for an article when she is probably the only model of this generation to have her career even chronicled in depth by the New York Times (after only her first big job).Trillfendi (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same merry-go-round again. People point out major flaws in the article, and get accused of hating the subject. The issues don't get solved due to a couple of editors not understanding the difference between an encyclopedia and a fan site, and how the writing style, research and choices on what to include are different between those two formats. Please have a look at the numerous peer reviews and featured article candidacies that this article has gone through. I'm not even going to get deep into this as I know some people do not want to accept criticism but only see it as a personal attack, this is useless and quite frankly one of the reasons why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3: Anyone who tried to contact her modeling agency and tried to get her a featured article “for her birthday” or anyone thinks her “hotness” prevents her from having a quality article can’t really see this objectively. One could only hope that whoever closes and demotes this does, because it could not possibly be more blatant.Trillfendi (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sad but true... Either we're anti-feminist (funny given that both of us list being feminist in our profiles...) or we hate Ratajkowski or don't wish her to have an informative article. Or we're supposedly just talking about the inclusion of one image ('cos we are prudes). The discussion about the actual flaws in the article is always directed elsewhere. Sigh. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • GuzzyG, I have decided to let this topic go forth without my influence and I appreciate your editorial perspective. The smallmindedness of Trillfendi who talks about people written about in The New York Times as if she knows better about what is appropriate subject matter for their publication than the NYT editors do. She then uses that same smallmindedness that compels her to tell us that she knows better about what should be in the NYT than their editors to tell us that she knows better about what should be in WP than WP editors who spend the most time with a subject. I think any non-professional author who thinks their soapbox should be used to point out that they have a better understanding of what is NYTworthy than the NYT themselves should log off for a while and look in the mirror to analyze their own hubris. I am often accused of being obsessed with a topic beyond the realm of normalcy. WP:CBBALL guys have had it out with me on several articles (Jabari Parker, Jahlil Okafor and Nik Stauskas) to name a few. Even the national media has gotten in on the act. There is a local journalist named Scott Powers (formerly a high school basketball reporter and now a Chicago Blackhawks reporter) who was really troubled by my enthusiasm for Parker. WRT TrueHeartSusie3, I use to spend a lot of time digging for details on subjects that I cared about. I continue to believe in WP:PRESERVE. I really don't think hatcheting the subject would serve the betterment of the article for the reader or for WP. I think a reviewer should consider GuzzyG's eloquent summary of this discussion. I would be more vocal in this discussion, but people are trying so hard to paint me as something other than a hardworker on the subjects that I care about. Why don't you spend your time bothering professional editors who are editing for pay.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just don’t get it do you,@TonyTheTiger:, but you wouldn’t because you’re still blinded by your obsession of her that you can’t see what we see, Mr. I Tried 5 Times to Get Her a Featured Article for Her Birthday, To No Avail. No one says you haven’t “worked hard” on this article, so here’s a pat on the head. I thought we were all over this by now being as it’s been a month. I never even said anything against the New York Times article (learn to fucking read), in fact I said not many models of this generation even get that kind of article from them (it was a compliment...) and that a substantial amount of information about her early life is in that article. Now please show me where I implied that I “know better” than the New York Times based on their reporting. Feel free to type in New York Times and find my comment if that helps. Trillfendi (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi, I read your comment as meaning you don't think she deserved to be in the NYT after only one big job. Full stop.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger:, it's good that you're admitting that this is not the first time you've run into such issues, I respect that. The issue is that you're not collecting/preserving these details in the right format. A general encyclopedia that tries to cover every subject in the world isn't for that, here each article should focus on giving general overviews of the topic and highlighting only the important events and subjects related to the topic. It means that a lot of material gets left out. The audience we're writing for isn't the fan or expert of topic X, it's for the person who's heard of a topic and doesn't have a lot of prior information on it; they come here to get an overview. Instead, I suggest that you start a blog or a personal website, or collaborate with people who are already running such for the people you're interested in. In those formats, your interest in finding and retaining so much detail would be gold. The audience for those would also be different, you'd be writing for people who want to know everything on a subject rather than just the basics.
As it has been mentioned, the reason why the two bios I've worked on that are FA's (Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin) might seem so detailed at first glance is that not only do they cover a long time (88 years for Chaplin, 60+ of which he was internationally famous) and the subjects are key figures in 20th century popular culture, who continue to have major impact and interest both to academics and the general public even today. Further trimming is always something I'm interested in as readability is a priority, but trust me, I've left out a lot of information. Take a look at any biography or fan website and you see, the articles really focus on the main bits. Had I listed everything that happened in these people's public lives, we'd need an entire encyclopedia for each of them. What remains is material that explains key issues, nothing more. The problem with Em Rata's article is that it lists everything that has happened so far in her public life, with little consideration for whether all that material needs to be there.
However, the very main difference between the MM/CC articles and Ratajkowski is that the former are in the past, and Ratajkowski is a present public figure who has been famous for less than ten years. We cannot retain all possible information in the article just because it might be important in the future; we have no crystal ball, and Wikipedia most certainly isn't in the business of making such predictions. It may be that Ratajkowski stays famous for the next 50 years and will be seen as a major public figure in 21st century pop culture, or it might be that she's seen as a model who had some fame in 2010s and was in a controversial music video. We don't know yet, and her current status does not suggest that she should have a very long article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
TrueHeartSusie3, I will probably always find myself on the liberal end of content inclusion. I spend a lot of time writing newish subjects of notability. I spent a lot of time detailing such subjects in the first half of this decade. As noted above, many have had issue with me over prior articles. The most storied one is Jabari Parker. His popularity peak was at about the same time as EmRata's. In 2012 and 2013, the year he graduated high school, he got more pageviews than 4 NBA All-Stars for the 2012–13 NBA season and 4 NBA All-Stars for the 2013–14 NBA season (one of the four was redundant in each count, so seven unique individuals). He had only 5.7% fewer pageviews than the 2012-13 NBA Rookie of the Year Damian Lillard. He was on the cover of Sports Illustrated as a high school junior. I had a lot of fun cramming facts in his article. The masses have since spoken against my efforts. This is similar to what is happening with EmRata here who was quite topical around the same time. Other editors may impose standards different than my own on the article at some point. My FA experience in terms of bios is mostly sports figures (Juwan Howard, Tyrone Wheatley, Tommy Amaker) and a politician (Richard Cordray). The sports figures were had almost all completed their athletic careers by the time I got them to FA (Howard retired a few months later and Amaker is retired player who is a coach). They were at very different stages of their careers than Parker or Ratajkowski. You are being generous in the continuing possibility that EmRata is to be a major public figure in 21st century pop culture. 3 straight direct to video movies is sort of an answer to that possibility. The long and the short of it is that I have not been able to calibrate my summarizing secondary sources for newish topics to a level of detail that other editors seem to want to support. I continue to think I am summarizing RS with relevant content. I will probably forever continue to disagree with others about this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it is crystal clear to anyone who comes across this reassessment and/or decides to join: please understand this article is being proposed for demotion primarily because of original research, citation overkill, promotional prose, and neutrality. Before the cereal guy decided to turn it into a personal indictment on his life's work, that's what we were discussing. I have given numerous examples on those subjects. This need for reassessment is not about what I, or any of us, think about Emily Ratajkowski, her looks, her career, her family, her political beliefs, etc. It's not about who has a master's degree in Emily studies. It's certainly not about which publication writes about her. It's about the current quality of the article, nothing more and nothing less. (And maybe if this page had a protection level most of these problems wouldn't be here.) Trillfendi (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have already granted permission to excise the only content that might be OR. The other stuff that you call OR is content that is sourced from WP:RS that you don't think I should have tracked down. I don't have enough time to really do WP justice anymore and EmRata is getting the shaft. I can't afford to spend the time on the details of this article that I once could and am tiring of this debate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it clear that i sympathize with both sides to this. I can see the hard work Tony has put in only to be discredited as an obsessive fan (could be said about any FA editor) but also i do agree with the fact that most of the biographical details in the article are obscure in nature and not widely reported. To be clear i was not diminishing Susie's work either, i think the Chaplin and Monroe articles are very good work and so is the work done on the Frida Kahlo page. I want to make it clear i am also not an editor of this page. My interest is in the question of how are we going to accurately create articles on current pop culture figures or figures associated with social media/reality television or any field i have listed above and make them FA quality when they lack the historical lens ala people like Monroe. The PewDiePie article is another one with GA status that someone might view as overly detailed. The biggest thing wrong with this article is the "media image" section, we don't have to include every journalists name and the section is way too focused on unimportant media beauty lists. The problem here is there's no academic assessment or proper biographical coverage of Em Rata and so this article does seem to grab at anything just to have something to have in it. This page does come across as moving rapidly between "she did this, now she did this" which does come across as more of a fan page then encyclopedic prose; i think this page could be written as more of a general overview rather as listing specific instances as has been said above. Regarding the Monroe article; it is over the top that Em Rata's page is 170,643 bytes and the FA Monroe article is 122,766 bytes which makes it clear this article probably should be edited down a bit. Articles like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift have the same type of problem though; it's just impossible to get a well written biography of someone who has not been extensively researched and who has a active career and in that case this article is not that unlike others of it's kind. GuzzyG (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if other pages aren't perfect with regard to such sections (which I've elsewhere seen referred to as "public image" or "in the media"), I concur that the "Media image" is quite bloated here. It should overall focus on her public perception more than her own thoughts. I would take the following out from it:
  • We Are Your Friends reviews would be better for "Breakthrough" if anywhere as those pertain to her performance in the movie instead of her overall image
  • The Lenny Letter paragraph because it is more about Ratajkowski's personal thoughts/experiences than how the public perceives her
  • Defending Melania Trump; not related to her image at all
Maybe more will come to mind later, but those are definite issues with the section. I overall say delist per this, the issues I mentioned above, and subpar sources (i.e. Stylecaster.com, Cinemablend.com, Daily Mirror, Askmen, Page Six, The Daily Beast, Us Weekly). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't dug into this enough to assess the article overall, but that bit about losing jobs because of her cleavage really needs to be removed or at the very least reworked. It sounds sexist as hell, though I think it's safe to say that wasn't the author's intent. The quote from her needs context to make it work, if that's at all possible. Vanamonde (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a decision has been made we can finally fix the useless fat of this article and hopefully it will stay that way. Start with these unreliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It became personal when you took it there, attacking me for simply for pointing things out. Everybody else has seen this GAR for what it is since the jump. The issues are obvious. Everyone is in consensus on that subject, especially the citation parts. Since this thing is technically still open, Aircorn’s comments are an additional opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAk_SNu1QNk
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Emily_Ratajkowski/1&oldid=894829856"