Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit

GA Review

 * This review is transcluded from Talk:Demi&. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

"as important a part": false claim
The article tells us that the bodypainting of Moore


 * is considered as important a part of the artform of body painting as the origins which go back to henna tattoos from remote villages.

That strikes me as awkwardly written, for a start. But that aside, is considered by whom? I took a look at the source,



Here's what this says about the painting/photo:


 * From celebrities who pose in front of cameras for dramatic colour images (Demi Moore, Vanity Fair November 1992 issue), to tiny villages in remote areas (Henna tattoos: Pakistan and India), body painting has for many centuries been a rich and cultural artform in global society.

What this seems to mean is that celeb posing (as exemplified by this photo) is one end of a spectrum of something that for centuries has been a rich and cultural blah blah. It does not say what the WP article claims that it says. I'm therefore about to remove this sentence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have readded the text in keeping with your interpretation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Absolut Gair"
The article tells us:


 * Gair became such a pop culture icon that she was considered for an Absolut Vodka Absolut Gair ad campaign.

This was sourced to the first page of a multipage article. This first page didn't mention Gair, so I substituted the all-in-one-page version. Thus:



I see no mention of "pop culture icon" or anything like it. Rather, an account manager named Jolie Schaffzin was impressed by the Moore photo and the reaction to it, and thought of paying Gair to do much the same thing for this vodka advert. Arguably the photo or the cover was a pop culture icon in Schaffzin's eyes; there's no hint that the artist was an icon. (Quite what it would mean for an artist to be an icon is an interesting question, but let's put that aside for now.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The version you added documents that she was considered for the ad campaign. What else do you need?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim Gratton
The article tells us:


 * Some claim that two-time world body painting champion, Tim Gratton, from Australia, was the inspiration for the art work.

This cites:



Putting aside the matter of how, if "world body painting champion" means anything, neither it nor Gratton is linked, this raises the question of who claim that Gratton (or his work?) was the inspiration.

The link is to the page on Gratton in something calling itself "The premier Australian entertainment directory". And the relevant part of it reads Tim Gratton was the inspiration for the Demi Moore for the cover shoot for Vanity Fair photographed by Annie Leibovitz -- a simple assertion with no reasoning or elaboration.

It's pretty obvious that Gratton's page was created by Gratton or his publicist. (Want your own article on that site? Just go here.) So all this boils down to is:


 * A bodypainter called Tim Gratton has claimed that he (or his work) was the inspiration for this work.

which is humdrum stuff indeed. For all I know there may be other material out there in which disinterested sources credit Gratton, but if so this WP article doesn't cite it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "dubious" tag was removed in this edit; I have just now readded it, as the concerns above have not been addressed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I concede that dubious may be appropriate if the source is not a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting somewhere.


 * The article now reads: A publicity website for Tim Gratton, two-time world body painting champion from Australia, claims that blah blah. If I were in a niggling mood I'd question this as sourcing for the claim of being "two-time world body painting champion", but as there are only so many hours in the day I'll let that pass. Yes, it's fair to say that his own website says this; I've removed the "dubious" tag accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A nice round number
The article tells us:


 * ''About 100 million people had seen the earlier cover,

citing as the source:



Here's the relevant part of the article, with, as a bonus, the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraph:


 * The first cover has been seen by almost 100 million people. The August issue hits newsstands July 14 . . .
 * Jane Fonda and Ted Turner are all smiles because Ted's daughter, Laura, and her husband are expecting the stork. The new addition will make Turner a grandpa for the first time; Fonda is claiming it'll make her a grandma for the first time as well. It's a close-knit family . . .
 * Jane Fonda and Ted Turner are all smiles because Ted's daughter, Laura, and her husband are expecting the stork. The new addition will make Turner a grandpa for the first time; Fonda is claiming it'll make her a grandma for the first time as well. It's a close-knit family . . .

Both end-of-paragraph ellipses are in the original.

A myopic fix to the WP article would be replacement of "About 100 million" by "Almost 100 million". However, I believe that the editors of WP articles should use their brains while applying "RS", and a little brainpower would tell the discerning editor (i) that a gossip columnist's unsupported claim of some huge number such as this is not reliable, and (ii) any figure of the number of people who had seen the front cover of a magazine is utterly meaningless as it raises questions that include the meaning of "seeing" the front cover of a magazine. (As Joe Sixpack's eyes scan a magazine rack for some automotive publication and momentarily pass over Vanity Fair, does he "see" it?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noted that the claim comes from a Houston Chronicle article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That attribution was already there when I posted the objection above. Now what's written has been amplified: According to a Houston Chronicle story that quotes both Moore and Brown, about 100 million people had seen the earlier cover. I don't see why Moore would be an expert: she's an actress-cum-model, not somebody in publishing/marketing. Brown wouldn't start to be a disinterested source: she has this magazine of hers to make appealing to potential advertisers. The Chronicle article is a gossipy one, and it presents the "100 million" claim with no reasoning or attribution whatever. But most damningly any such claim is obviously silly, raising as it does the question of what "seeing" could mean in this context (in addition to that of research methodology). -- Hoary (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article now reflects the source. If you want to disqualify the source as a WP:RS, that may be possible since I do not know the credentials of the author.  Are you knowledgeable on critical art study.  Is there a reason Gair is not mentioned in critical art texts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I claim no particular knowledge in art. I can speculate on why Gair isn't mentioned in works of artcrit, but this would be no more than speculation so I'll spare you. However, all of this is irrelevant to the matter of the degree to which the original cover was viewed. For an intelligent estimate of that, I suppose one would need comments from somebody knowledgable about magazine/newspaper readership and TV viewing. (Brown probably is knowledgable, but on her own magazine [or its rivals] she's no RS.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?
The more I look at this article, the more of a disaster it seems. (See above.) I suspect that a closer look would reveal more horrors, but the demands of "RL" prevent me. I'm puzzled by its elevation to and retention of "GA" status. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More misrepresentation
The article told us:


 * Although willing to credit Moore and Gair with the rebirth of bodypainting, some even had difficulty describing the work as novel because it traces back to the "beginnings of man"

First question: Who are these "some"? I turn to the source:



And what does Rubin actually write?


 * Ponder, reluctant to call this renewed interest in body painting a trend, says it has been around "since the beginning of man. Let's say it's been reborn since the Demi Moore cover."


 * That would be the post-pregnancy Moore, again on the cover of Vanity Fair, again wearing nada, her personal-trainer-assisted body painted trompe l'oeil style by Los Angeles makeup artist Joanne Gair.


 * "All I could say when I saw it was `Wow,'" says Ponder, a makeup artist, wig maker and stylist with Richard Stead Enterprises in San Francisco. "It was impressive."

So she's ascribing some vaguely relevant-sounding opinion not to "some" but to one person. And to infer from this that Ponder had difficulty describing the work as novel because it traces back to the "beginnings of man" looks like a great confection of "OS", to interpret it mildly.

There's more trompe-l'œil in this WP article than meets the eye. It may be a "Good Article", but it's no more a good article than ... oh well, I should avoid inserting flamebait. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points and have placed a GA request tag. Someone will turn up and reassess itin due course. Currently we are working through the backlog of articles that were passed to GA over two years ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since that time most if not all of the "dubious" tags have been removed, though with scant attention, it seems, to the points raised above. The article is better than it was two weeks ago, but it's rough.


 * This article terms the photograph is termed "groundbreaking". It also terms the earlier photo of Moore pregnant "groundbreaking". That sets me thinking. I wonder if some of the stuff written in this article might have been adversely affected by all the windbreaking of Vanity Fair celeb adulation and the newspaper coverage of this "celebrity skin" photo/cover/event/non-event. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to change the word groundbreaking in either or both instances if you have a better word.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that the earlier photo started a trend in which celebs posed pregnant. So I guess it was groundbreaking. I don't see how the later photo led to a spate of photos of painted naked celebs or to anything else (other than a boost for Gair's career), and thus don't see what ground it broke. -- Hoary (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has made Gair famous and now she is an annual ritual in the Swimsuit Issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have no argument with an assertion that it made Gair famous and/or boosted her career. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rival claims
We're told:


 * Some sources have claimed that the work is a derivative of preceding works. Playboy claimed to have published a photo with the similar style bodypainting in 1968 with a necktie, suit jacket and similar pose. A publicity website for Tim Gratton, two-time world body painting champion from Australia, claims that he was the inspiration for the art work.

There are just twelve issues of Playboy every year. Back issues are plentiful, and the magazine has a devoted and knowledgable following. If this claim is true, it should be easy for the person making it to give precise information (e.g. "May 1968, page 37") and then for some disinterested person to check the veracity of the precise claim. With no precise information, I think the claim is safely ignored.

Anyone is free to claim that he himself did anything. Without even a hint that the wider world is impressed by Gratton's claim, I think that this too can go.

Each of these is unambiguously presented as a claim from a non-reliable source. Each can therefore stay, if other editors think that this is desirable. But my own opinion is that by leaving them in we're being too indulgent to attention-seekers. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this article is currently at issue in a WP:GAR review can you comment on its content there so all interested parties can respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I could. But I don't think it's related to GA status. Though there's something about the article here that gives me a queasy feeling, there's nothing that I think breaks any guideline or policy.


 * Tell you what: I suggest forgetting about the matter, until the article either keeps its GA status (which seems likely and would be welcome) or doesn't. -- Hoary (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This kind of body painting is definitely not new. I recall helmet ads in UK motor-cycling magazines in the 1970's which featured models with painted-on skin-tight leathers which looked absolutely convincing (even down to the zips and stitched seams) until you noticed that leathers don't usually have nipples! Frankly I don't think the subject of this article is notable, let alone worthy of GA status. Samatarou (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Demi's Birthday Suit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306000251/http://www.newsweek.com:80/id/102292 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/102292

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Demi's Birthday Suit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403055155/http://www.iocoartmedia.com:80/PUBLICATIONS/body_painting.htm?n=body_painting.htm to http://www.iocoartmedia.com/PUBLICATIONS/body_painting.htm?n=body_painting.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is this listed as a WP:VA?
I was not involved in the selection of this subject as a WP:VA. It was initially listed on 12:18, September 28, 2019. I can see that this talk page was tagged by a bot as a VA on 19:54, March 25, 2020, the diff has an edit description that says maintain. I don't know if there was a discussion for either date. The level 5 talk page archives are not entirely sequential, but I see no discussion of this work in archives 5-12.

There may be no consensus regarding the vitality of this subject yet. There also may be a discussion at a date in the future when I am not around. I will attempt to document my support for this article as a VA should I not be around. This article presents what is likely the most important, notable, prominent and vital body art/body painting in art history. Thus, it has been deemed vital. It came to my attention that some question whether this is a vital subject while discussing another work. User:J947 had noted that it is not one of the most vital magazine covers as Afghan Girl and V-J Day in Times Square appear to be the only other magazine covers listed as vital. Thus, I will break this down much further. Currently, this work depicts the subject, Demi Moore (VA5), as photographed by Annie Leibovitz (VA5) for Vanity Fair (VA5) and painted by Joanne Gair (VA5).

This work could be evaluated for vitality along many dimensions. bodypainting is a 3-dimensional art. sculpture is the field of 3-dimensional works of art and this is not listed among the 72 sculptural works as it is not vital along that dimension. However, bodypainting is ephemeral and it must be recorded in a 2-dimensional format in order to have any permanence. It has been preserved as a photograph published in a magazine. As a magazine cover for a VA5 magazine, it is not vital along that dimension. As a photograph by a VA5 photographer, it is not vital and not listed among the 34 photographs listed. Furthermore, bodypainting is not a vital concept/form of visual art. If it is in fact deemed as vital it is because of its singular excellence as the most prominent/notable and thus important/vital specific work of bodypainting. In a sense, a bodypainting is performance art that is executed in a day which is about its duration of permanence. As performative art it does not fit into a category in which it has general comparative vitality. Only a specific bodypainting work with very special attributes could really be considered for vital articles.

So where does the vitality come from. Moore is not doing much performing, but her contribution to the work is significant. In terms of its sculptural form, Moore contributes a form that in dimensions is conventionally attractive. She is a sculptural subject that might be considered extremely close in dimensions and proportions to the shape that a sculpture might attempt to pursue. So her VA5 performance is to bring the athletically chiseled sculptural surface and inherited and/or professionally modified physical features that make her conventionally attractive as a subject. That is part 1.

Gair is the only bodypainter that is listed as vital. In other words, she is essentially art history's most acclaimed bodypainter. She now has a long history of performing single-day bodypaintings on high quality sculptural surfaces at a very high level. Those works result in a subjects with almost no apparent flaws and well-suited for photography. This specific work is no different. Her bodypainting mastery is at such a high level of detail and quality that it is exemplary as nearly the pinnacle of excellence for a single-day bodypainting performance. That is part 2.

Leibovitz is a master photographer and well-suited to capturing a relatively still sculptural form at a level of excellence that is suitable for magazine covers. Once Gair and Moore had put in a full day, she was able to give the performance permanence in short order. That is part 3.

Vanity Fair is a magazine that is considered vital and presents a form of publication that is considered high level. In this case the publication has a vitality as a memorable work that would be hard to duplicate.

I understand that bodypainting may not be a vital form. There may also be a day when Gair's excellence is so far in the past that it is a distant memory and the even before that happens, there might be such a squeeze on vital article slots that this might be challenged and nominated for removal. The final form of the work is the result of a perfect storm of human sculptural form, bodypainting excellence and photography excellence that is not likely to see publication in the form that this received and be regarded in as historical a manner. I.e., Gair may have even had some bodypaintings on the cover of Sports Illustrated (VA5) and its Swimsuit Issue (VA5), but this first prominent appearance of bodypainting in an esteemed periodical is like its rookie card. That particular publication has specific vitality that a random Sports Illustrated cover would have difficulty matching if it already happened or may happen in the future. I.e., Demi's Birthday Suit may forever be the preeminent example of bodypainting. It is just a matter of whether vital articles considers it preeminent enough for a place.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Further commentary: As single-day performance artists go, the art community has recently begun to herald contemporary artists who have risen to fame as graffiti artists such as Banksy (VA5), Keith Haring (VA5) and Jean-Michel Basquiat (VA5). I don't really know how Girl with Balloon (VA5) stacks up against Banksy's other work or graffiti in general, but today it has amassed praise as his most vital work without the VA5 painting surface, VA5 photographer or VA5 publication media. My perception of the other elements may be overblown for Demi's Birthday Suit .-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)