Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2


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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015.

Emily Ratajkowski

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about,Emily Ratajkowski who is an elite bikini model (has appeared in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue for the last two years) and who is best known as the model from the video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries. The page was viewed 3.2 million times in 2013 and 1.5 million times in 2014. Ratajkowski has parlayed her model buzz into sex symbol status and some movie roles, including a role in Gone Girl. I am hoping for a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in about 13 months from now. After making progress on this article in 2014 (An October WP:GAN, a November WP:PR and a December WP:GOCE), I think this article is moving in the proper direction for a WP:FAC nomination. During and since the first FAC, I feel progress was made toward various concerns.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff
I don't know if I will have time for a full review, but here are some things that I noticed immediately:
 * Sources 62, 64, 74, etc. I think that main title is sufficient. You do not need to add the second line sub-title as well.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Source 64 (MovieWeb) does not bring up the intended link. Its not totally dead, but different. Please review all links for redirects such as this.
 * Swapped ref.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I used the checklinks tool to the right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Source 5 Stylecaster.com should point to SheKnows Media
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Check all source publishers ending in '.com' for appropriate company links
 * See prior WP:PR and WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking if they are reliable, although since they have been questioned multiple times it would be wise to find an additional/alternate source. I did not see those reviewers saying it was okay after your replies. What I was really talking about though was similar to my comment above. Changing unlinked Stylecaster.com to linked SheKnows Media can help those that question the reliability of those sources. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the support for some of the sources is lacking from the reviewers, but no one is pointing to any specifically as not being WP:RS. I would swap out any if I could.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please try harder on this. Here is another one: www.fashionmodeldirectory.com -> Fashion Model Directory BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest I do with Styleite?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That link is okay. Its better than nothing.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  23:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K., I have double checked all of them now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No sources for Andrew's Alteration and A Year and a Day other than IMDB?? Not reliable enough.
 * Is there another industry source for a filmography. I believe that even the most notable actors have filmographies with questionable sourcing like this. I believe that in the case of a filmography this is almost considered a reliable source for this purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any sources to prove that the website and Twitter accounts cited are indeed her official accounts?
 * Her twitter has the verified accounts emblem on it and that page points to the website that we are claiming is her official website.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like she is known more for instagram than twitter. I would still look for a reliable source that makes a direct reference to her social media account(s) if I were you. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you base this IG notoriety on? Have there been problems with Twitter verified accounts in the past?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey. this seems to verify the @emrata twitter handle.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It says Instagram though doesn't it? Must be the same handle for both. But that is the kind of source I was talking about, yes. BTW, how does the "Twitter verified account" thing work? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  23:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of even better sources that are also all really referring to her IG account: Allure, MTV and USA Today. What do you want me to do with this sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A verified account is something that a notable person can attain by following a process that I am unfamiliar with. I have never heard of any issues with a verified account.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It just seems like if she is so big on Twitter and Instagram, then there should be some mention of both of them in the article. I see the verified check mark on both now, thanks. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  03:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Too much info on "Blurred Lines" in the lead, including three mentions by name. This article is about Emily, not a song.
 * Trimmed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Rise to fame' section: Begins with "The video". What video? Previous section was titled 'Music video performances', plural. You should add at least one source that actually calls her a sex symbol after the first sentence.
 * Regarding the term "sex symbol", I added it to the article on July 10. I see that its use has been mirrored several times. All other sources that are not clear mirrors of us seem to postdate my contribution of the term. E.g.,
 * Coed.com
 * Kpopstarz.com
 * TheGentlemansJournal.com
 * Should I use one of these postdated sources or take other editorial action?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I googled "Emily Ratajkowski sex symbol" and the very first response was this from 2013. Wont this work? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for digging this one up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC) The 'Rise to fame' section looks like a bullet list: On x date she did y, on z date she did q, over and over. Then there is "The newly single model", with no prior reference to her not being single. Every time I read a little more, I find more issues. It just doesn't strike me as one of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, which is needs to be to pass FAC, so for now I have to oppose. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a better source for the Hot 100 list than the two you current have, no?
 * I have swapped the one you suggested for the second one. However, since these were from primary sources, I have retained the secondary source to confirm that the list has notability beyond the primary source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , Do you have outstanding concerns?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Images
Could or  please look at the Fair Use rationale at  this image?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the stated purpose, combined with the text given in the article, is sufficient to overcome the tag's proviso not to use such images in the articles of the people they picture. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , The intent of the text is to explain that this is the image that made her a star, essentially. Is there something about the FUR that is wrong or is it the text of the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that it's wrong, just that it's insufficient - it's not clear why we need to see the cover to understand the text. Do any of the sources expand on what it was about the cover that was important, or was it just the fact of being on the cover and getting exposure through that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When I look at the image, it is apparent to me why this particular image could propel a woman to some form of notoriety, which makes it obvious to me why just talking about such an image is not sufficient. If you told me of an image that was the reason for her success, I would want to understand in words or by presentation why such an image could propel a person to stardom. The picture is stunning in the revelation of brooding eyes, lean physique (visible rib cage), yet bodacious physical presence. In addition the placement of the hands, heel and toes add class. The use of shadow in key places are all things that can be observed. I am unable to find a critique of the picture. But the article includes multiple anecdotal summary statements about the memorable overall experience of viewing the image by some of the leading men of the entertainment world. Beyond the summary statements by these people and the picture itself there is not much else to go on. However, I don't think it is truly necessary to have a critical review of the image. You say "it's insufficient". Then you talk about needing more of something. Would you like a more developed FUR or more developed text?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Both - you give a great explanation here but it does not come through in what is currently present. However, you might not be able to source it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Until shows up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nikkimaria. Certain of the explanation above reads to me like the conflation of significance to the subject with significance to the reader's understanding (see “Relationships” in the “8. Significance” section of the non-free dispatch).  That Ratajkowski’s appearance on a magazine was the catalyst for her discovery by Thicke is readily understood through prose.  Now, if it was indeed the unique visual characteristics mentioned (“stunning in the revelation [...] the placement [...] (t)he use of shadow in key places”) that inspired and persuaded Thicke, there might very well be a case.  However, as Nikkimaria noted, that is currently merely OR.  Without a sourced discussion, we cannot presume to know the mind of Thicke.  Alternatively stated, there's a distinction to be made between the artistry of the cover image and the mere woman on the cover.  Was the cover actually necessary, or would he have chosen her even if he'd happened by her on the street?  Right now, the only evidence is that the cover was a means of acquaintance; that its unique visual style had a meaningful role is unsupported supposition.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that we have had two WP:RFCs involving this image at Talk:Treats! where I have previously presented my arguments regarding use of this image. The second one put more attention on this image. Note that in that RFC,, who I believe continues to review here said "on Emily's page, if this shot was critically discussed (as it seems to be) and noted as the career-launching photo for the model, it clearly is fine on the model's page."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem's comment reminds me to consider what constitutes critical review. Photographic techniques need not be discussed. Comments like those I made above about use of shadow and body positioning need not be discussed either. I think two statements that this image stood out from the pantheon of model imagery availed to the leading male sex symbols of our day is a significant critical commentary. Do they need to say why it stood out to make it critical commentary. We all know how many models are trying to get into videos of artists who produce #1 songs. Isn't the fact that this picture stood out to two such individuals significant critical commentary. Saying it stood out to both is encylopedic. Once we have two such encyclopedic thoughts, then we need to summarize that and present it to the reader in a way that helps them understand. I have spent enough time with WP:WPVA subjects here (dozens of FAs and GAs in that project, including many sculpture and painting FAs and a few individual photo GAs as well as some artist GAs) to take a look at a photo and conceive the reasons for its significance. My photo GAs for More Demi Moore and Demi's Birthday Suit mostly say stuff about a bunch of people thinking an image was significant and not stuff about photographic techniques and such. I think what we need to see is clearly shown. People think this image stands out. The reader can not see why without seeing the image in truth and if we had prose explaining why then maybe we might not need to see the images. Without prose explaining in a detailed manner why the image stands out we should let the image speak for itself. The image is a very strong artistic presentation. Despite my own feelings about the subject of the photo, I think the artistic merits of the image are apparent. This is not just a "gorgeous girl who was featured naked on covers" as Sandy discussed below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The image doesn't need discussion of the photographic nature, etc. but it does need more than what amounts to a single comment that "this image launched her career". Your other examples provide the type of commentary that doesn't necessary need to be critically about the image but show why the image is important (and in these cases, important enough for their own articles). In this case, we're still at the idea this launched her career, and that's just not enough alone. You don't have many sources to say why this image stands out to any great degree, particularly in comparison to those other images were are much more iconic in nature. I'm not saying these sources might not exist but the article's current content lacks them to readily include the image yet. There's a possibility you can get it there, but it does need much more commentary whether critically about the image, or more about the legacy/iconic nature of the image. --M ASEM (t) 19:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , and, Does this suffice for NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fair enough, discussion specifically on the photo. --M ASEM (t) 02:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not great, but fair.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki and EC; the prose here is plodding throughout, quite deficient, and so far off the 1a mark, that I don't see any utility in entering an oppose and then having to follow up on it, but I hope the use of that image in two articles can be dealt with while we're here. (As a prose example, without even going beyond the lead, one finds: "Her acting career began with youth acting roles in the San Diego area before gaining a recurring role on iCarly and later roles in major films." Her acting career got a role in a film, cool.  As another example of the trivia-laden prose, "She also was invited to the 18th annual May 15, 2014 Condé Nast Traveler Hot List Party.".  How surprising that a gorgeous girl who was featured naked on covers would be invited to such an event!)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, your comments as "plodding throughout, quite deficient, and so far off the 1a mark" seem a bit harsh for an article that has had a recent (less than 6 months ago) WP:GOCE review by that resulted in these changes. I will request another GOCE review after this FAC, if it does not generate enough commentary to help me improve the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Second, as you know, almost all of my WP:FACs that succeed do so with a lot of copyediting by others. I am a good encyclopedic researcher but not a good writer. I hope you do not discourage the commentary that this fully researched subject needs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Third, I'll respond above regarding the image momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not alone Tony; I know how you feel. GOCE does not always get the job done sufficiently for FA. I wish there was a better way than begging known good writers to go over it. But honestly, this article still has technical issues as well, as noted in my comments above. I would not support it even with better writing.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I seem to have missed some of your responses above. This no doubt has to do with my Ubering schedule, which is usually Fri-Mon and your Friday responses above. Now, I know what the editors who work full time go through. Your responses above are appreciated. I will review them and try to address them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I realize your response was really from late Thursday in Chicago, but by that time I am doing my semiweekly review to changes to my watchlist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.