Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3


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

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

Emily Ratajkowski

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about model, actress and activist Emily Ratajkowski. I would like to take one last shot at getting the article promoted to FA in time to be a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday (on June 7), which is less than 3 months away. I have requested that the current PR be closed. I feel that I have attempted to resolve all issues that were raised in the prior FAC.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Category:FA-Class fashion articles, no models are at WP:FA status. Please help me raise the quality of this article by giving some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have contacted the following persons who have been involved in previous discussions:
 * WP:GOCE reviewer User:Baffle gab1978
 * Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/GA1 reviewer User:Cirt
 * Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussants User:Cirt, User:SNUGGUMS, User:Kiyoweap, User:Sigeng
 * Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussant User:Cirt, User:MaranoFan and User:Karanacs
 * Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussant User:Bollyjeff, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Masem, User:Nikkimaria, and User:Elcobbola
 * Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussants User:White Arabian Filly--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The page's most active editors:, , , , , , , , , , , , and --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from GRuban

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

--GRuban (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead: bounces around a bit. In the first para, it starts with born and raised, then goes to reason for notability (2013), then further career post 2013 - fine. But then the second para goes back to 2012 - why? Then the third para doesn't mention any dates, making it unclear when is meant, though it seems like it might go back even further than 2012 ... I recommend going chronological, but you can pick a different order, as long as there is any obvious order, as is it's confusing.
 * The LEAD does not attempt to be chronological. There is an overview. Then there is a modelling paragraph, an acting paragraph and an other personal stuff paragraph. I welcome commentary on working with this structure or clarification on why this structure is no good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I would appreciate feedback on the newly organized and expanded LEAD as well as the status of all other issues. I hope to be too busy to respond until Monday or Tuesday after tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks better now, the organization by subject is more clear. --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "She has now been in two Swimsuit Issues." should explain that this means Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues, as is not obvious, lots of mags have such.
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Our article Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue italicizes all 4 words. Also we should probably say "as of 2015" instead of "now". --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have rearranged this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Much better now. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We Are Your Friends with Zac Efron (her first leading role) - haven't seen the movie, but from the text below, "leading role" is overstatement. It's her first non-bit-part, but from your own statements below ("Although not a cameo, ... a role not requiring significant acting.... not part of the central relationship of the movie") it seems to be a minor role. If you insist on it, I recommend a citation of a critic calling it such.
 * She had lots and lots of lines and was in many scenes. Her onscreen role was not minor in this sense. She was clearly the female lead. In terms of contributing to the theme of the movie, her role was that of a muse for the male characters. I'll look for a critic citing it as a leading role.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the current citation that I just added adequate?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, will do. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exposure to the nude female figure in photography and art during her formative years prepared Ratajkowski for her eventual nude and semi-nude appearances before the camera.[16] ... Her father's work as a visual artist exposed her to nudity in art.[17] - Repetitive, combine these two.
 * Combined.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. How about moving the "Among her influences was exposure to the photography of Helmut Newton and Herb Ritts in books" up as well, though not necessarily sticing all into one sentence? --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a young teen, she experienced pressure from friends, family and society due to her physical maturity and developing sexuality.[18][19] - what kind of pressure? pressure to model? pressure to have sex? surely not from her family?
 * Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Still not enough. "she experienced pressure regarding expressing her sexuality" means what? She was pressured to express it, or to hide it, or to express it in certain ways, or not to express it in other ways, or some of each from different people? If we're writing something, that implies it's somehow different from what 90% of adolescents experience. What, exactly? --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tried to clarify further. The sources are right there. If this current phrasing is insufficient, please consider making a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good now; you finally explained how she was pressured. --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After two nondescript movie roles, Ratajkowski appeared as Gibby's girlfriend Tasha in two third-season episodes of Nickelodeon's iCarly. Despite her previous minor film roles, she described her iCarly role as "my first and only acting job".[2] - when was this? when were the minor roles? I realize they're there in the tables, but to me, at least, it's obviously missing from the text as well
 * I have cited the 2009-2010 iCarly role, but citing the dates of the early small roles in non-notable films is a bit of a tall order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Her manager discouraged her from pursuing many acting engagements until she was in a position to be more selective.[8][22] - she had a manager after two minor roles and two cable appearances? Really? Or was this her modeling manager?
 * Recall she did a lot of stage work in San Diego so she had some sort of track record regarding her acting potential. I have revised the text.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She had become a disillusioned student after her brief experience in the School of the Arts and Architecture at UCLA. - in what way disillusioned?
 * Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "both disappointed in the academic and social environment" Sorry, still not enough. Disappointed how? Were the academics not rigorous? Too strict? Was there too little socializing? Too much? Did she not have friends? Not have classes she liked? What? Also "was both disappointed" is clumsy phrasing. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to look at this again, but keep in mind we are presenting what she has put on the public record as her reason. Also these were her stated reasons while she was an aspiring actress in Hollywood. I will look at this again though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is hard for me to say more about the academic issue. She said "I went in for the art department, which was really small, and I thought it'd be a school within a big school. But I didn't really find that. I also find fine art education really arbitrary. Some of the conceptual stuff they were pushing I didn't really agree with." Not a school within a big school is ambiguous and could mean she thought it would operate independently as its own school within a big school or operate as a school more in synch with the big school. Furthermore, saying she found the things arbitrary and in conflict with her artistic concepts is also somewhat ambiguous. In terms of the social issue, she said "When people are like – 'College! Oh my God! Ultimate freedom!' -- I didn't feel that way. My roommates were loving hitting the town, but I wasn't as psyched about going to the frats." I could say she did not feel college was the Ultimate freedom that it was cracked up to be and that she did not like the frat party as a social option. What do you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "She found the UCLA fine art education arbitrary and in conflict with her artistic concepts, and didn't enjoy socializing with fellow students." --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (with minor suggestion).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models", Ratajkowski considers herself to have the potential to break barriers for models -1: need an inline ref directly after the quote; 2: explain the difference (presumably that runway models are traditionally taller and flat or angular?)
 * I have added some clarification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Now a little repetitive, but I don't want to keep poking at this one sentence. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On May 4, 2015, she attended the Met Gala, and made news by wearing a dress from Topshop - strike this whole sentence, we are not a gossip mag, and don't note that she sometimes goes to see a show and wears clothes when she does so. This much can be assumed.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Her sex appeal remained high, as evidenced by - Yeek. Arguably the whole article is evidence of her sex appeal, not a specific item. Remove these words.
 * O.k.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On July 31, 2014, Ratajkowski announced that she had been cast in her first leading role - why does it matter when she announced it, now that it's happened already? Remove.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Similarly "In March 2015, Ratajkowski was announced as part of the cast for The Spoils Before Dying." and " (September 3 release announced on September 1)".
 * I do not understand the parenthetical above, but I have removed the announcement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical is from your text, and isn't that clear there either. I recommend removing it. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While you're here, move these two paras down to the rest of the section about the film; one film shouldn't be split among two sections
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * her hometown movie critic Anders Wright of The San Diego Union-Tribune remained silent on her role. - again, strike. Someone not writing about her is not news.
 * It may not be news, but it is critical commentary. Saying that a person has a significant role that was not worth critiquing is actually a critique on the role.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I need a direct response to this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And note I am a huge fan of this actress, and am just attempting to summarize the secondary sources that people might rely on to enterpret her performance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I disagree. Someone not mentioning her is not critical commentary about her. As I write below, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and the Pope also did not mention her role. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Obama, Putin, and the Pope are not relevant here. I have listed only film critics notable enough to have articles on WP. From that subset of critics, I have listed only those who wrote critical commentary included at either Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes that attempts to describe the notable elements of the films in which she had a significant role. You are talking about people (Obama, Putin, and the Pope) who have no professional expertise in film criticism, and who have not written about the films in which she had a critical role. Of course people who write nothing about film and did not attempt to dissect films in which she had a significant role would not write about her. What is notable is that she is described as being the lead in the film and people who are expert in film criticism and who critically reviewed the film in which she had a significant role made no comment on her performance. Please get on point and explain why when an expert in your field who is evaluating the performances in a work you played a major role in says nothing about you what that means to the reader. The article as it stands summarizes what every critic who has an article on WP (plus her hometown critic), is included in Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes and reviewed the film said or didn't say about her performance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those comments are for her We Are Your Friends role. For less prominent roles, I expanded the list of critics to those without WP articles to round out the article as necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I'm going to hold the line here. If a critic did not mention her, it does not help our article to write "critic did not mention her". Feel free to get a WP:3O or open a WP:RFC or whatever, but I am quite sure about this. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K., I have trimmed the WAYF paragraph from 2303 to 1485 characters, which is over 35% trim. An WP:RFC is a 30 day process, so I will get an opinion at WP:BLPN, which can be resolved much more quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion was supported at BLPN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the offending paragraph short enough now? I don't want to be arbitrary in shortening the list of reviewers. Right now we have all Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes critics who had WP bios last summer who commented on Ratajkowski in WAYF. I could shorten the list to those with WP bios whose reviews were published in media outlets that had WP articles. That would cut down a couple of critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to address all of your concerns. Aside from this query, I believe we have satisfied your expectations. Can you clarify your perception of the progress? Do you have remaining concerns?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We Are Your Friends performance garnered her mixed reviews - this whole paragraph is at least twice (probably four times) as long and detailed as it should be. As clearly stated, this is a minor role, so presumably will not be the high point of her career. Pick a few representative/influential reviews, summarize the rest.
 * I think I kind of punted and summarized each notable author who was at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Some of the above debate may sort itself out as I look at trimming this down. Let me see. I am not sure I can cut it by more than a third, but I'll have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably the worst offender from that paragraph is this sentence: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Brian Viner of Daily Mail and both Peter Bradshaw and Mark Kermode of The Guardian were also silent on Ratajkowski's performance.[124][135][136][137] We might as well write that Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and the Pope also didn't mention it.
 * Most of these are good now, with a few minor exceptions I trust we'll work out. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I saw you struck your support with the hope that it was temporary. I have tried to address the issue in which you concurred with SV. If I am not there yet, give me more direction. I have another 48 hours where I can spend time on the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not there yet, I'm afraid, though I appreciate the effort. I'm sorry that you only have 48 hours, as I'm not sure it'll be enough (with the new text you're adding, you're possibly resolving some issues, but adding others, among them grammar/style), but let's try.
 * I just mean Friday to Monday I will again not be a useful editor. Next week Tuesday through Thursday I will be available again. I am just saying that I need your attention Tuesday through Thursday.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence "A YouTube video about the making of the "Love Somebody" video shows that it was shot on January 16, 2013." - can be compressed into "shot on Jan 16..." and stuck onto the previous sentence, it's just a source.
 * I tried to make the change that you wanted, but was not sure exactly what your instruction was.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Ratajkowski said she felt the attention given to the nudity..." paragraph is ER reacting to public reaction. Move it after the next 2 paragraphs which are about the public reaction.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Throughout you're mixing present tense (assert, feel, point) with past (was controversial, said). Pick one; I think past is better.
 * MOS:TENSE is confusing because certain things are suppose to be present tense and others are suppose to be past tense. I think a film is a past event, but reviews about a film are current opinions to be written in the present. However, I believe a song is an ongoing present tense subject. I am not averse to being corrected on my changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ""Blurred Lines" was controversial because some feel it promotes a man's freedom to vanquish women at will, while others assert it promotes female power and freedom in sexual congress. " - er ... I'm pretty sure the people who thought it was sexist greatly outnumber, and feel stronger about it, than those who asserted it promoted female power; and many of the apologists were directly involved with the video. The CBC article by Andrea Warner was quite explicit: "This isn’t satire, post-post irony or freedom of speech. This is war." We should be clear this is not balanced.
 * This is a tough thing to balance. This is the biography and not the BL article. I am trying not to place WP:UNDUE weight on the controversy. Basically, I have tried to present enough information for the readers to understand both sides of the four facets of the controversy that I mention in the newly expanded LEAD. I will stick a bit more her about convictions, but this article is not really the place for much more detail in that regard is it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added the CBC article and the fact that the song was widely banned at Universities. This is not the BL article, so I don't know how much more belongs in her bio. I think any more detail belongs in the BL article directly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here questioning ER's feminism; I gave 2 links below that do so, and I think more can be found from searching with the other 2 search engine links I gave. It's all right for this to be less than ER's own statements, and those supporting her, as the ones questioning her feminism seem to be in the minority, but they do exist and should be mentioned.
 * I think it is now clear why her femism is questioned. I have even added a sentence in the LEAD summarizing the controversy. Oddly, I don't find others stating the controversy, but rather mostly Ratajkowski saying others say there is a controversy. Regardless, I have summarized the WP:RS on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "she was featured by the Los Angeles-based jewelry designer as the face of her Spring 2016 campaign wearing body chains, rings, bracelets, pendants, and chokers" ... er, yes, but that's sort of avoiding the main issue, which is that she was featured wearing basically ONLY body chains, rings, bracelets, pendants, and chokers. That's why the campaign drew the attention it did from the sources, as I wrote, the sources make a big deal of her almost complete nudity. Models wearing rings is no big deal. Models wearing solely rings is. --GRuban (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "In Complex, She also said" - lower case S
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The BL plagiarism controversy doesn't seem to bear on ER much; she's not being accused of plagiarism, she just danced. (This is in contrast to the accusation of sexism, her appearance in the video is an important part of that.)
 * That paragraph is an attempt to describe why a single music video could launch a career. It gives three points 1.) The song was popular around the world in 2013, 2.) It was popular in her home country for an unusually long time in 2013, 3.)After months of popularity as evidenced in the music charts, the song remained prominent for a much longer time due to news coverage. She was not involved in the plaguarism issue, but it probably contributed greatly to her popularity by keeping the song in people's minds until she could escalate her acting career and modelling careers to higher levels.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still wouldn't put it in myself, but can accept it. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I have attempted to address all of your latest concerns. Further feedback is welcome. I don't expect to do much more editing for the next 12 hours as I prepare to shoot the 2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game here in Chicago tonight, but I will be back online tonight for 24 hours before 4 hard days of driving. So if you can leave me any further concerns by tonight, I will attempt to address them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , can I request your feedback on other potential images from this 2015 video using the following points of the video that have potential images 1:02-1:03; 1:34-1:36; and 2:02-2:04? P.S. I am on my backup computer right now and am not able to do high quality screen caps until my primary comes back. If you find any of those points worth capturing you could add them to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that video isn't Creative Commons licensed. YouTube hides the license under the SHOW MORE link in the middle of the page. That video is under "Standard YouTube License", which means we can't reuse it. The two that I found that are under "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dBRIBCBI40 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1B4pFMnLZY. (There are a few other YouTube videos of her marked Creative Commons Attribution, for example the Hollywood Daily ones, but I frankly doubt their ownership of the images they display. The LOVE magazine ones do seem actually owned by the magazine.) Strangely enough, it's not the easiest thing to find freely licensed pictures of someone who normally receives lots of money for having pictures taken of them. --GRuban (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , since you are the discussant in this review that has paid the most attention to the content I was hoping you might have an opinion on whether I should mention her latest print campaign that is getting major press. Do we want to include ad campaigns that get a lot of press? See Esquire, Austrailian Elle, In Style, MSN, The Sun, New.com.au, and . I am contemplating the propriety of adding this campaign to her article. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's worth a sentence, due to, as you write, the extensive coverage it's gotten, but not more than that - I haven't read all the sources, but the first few seem to all be saying the same things: "she's doing an ad campaign, look, mostly naked photos!", which is not really that different from the rest of her oeuvre. So it would be one more representative example of her work; since we don't have countless numbers of such examples yet, it is worth spending one sentence on it. The term "propriety", though, doesn't really apply to this article, which is something I think both Emily Ratajkowski herself and SarahSV would agree on. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K. I'll add a sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, I've read SarahSVs comments, and agree with a number of them, especially her point 3. A noticeable fraction of the article is Ratajkowski defending herself against claims that Blurred Lines is inherently sexist... but we don't present those claims, just her defense. That's not balanced. Sarah's points 2 and 5 can both be satisfied, at least partly, by removing the parts that depend on the gossip papers (for example: "Emily Ratajkowski displays her cleavage ... " ahem). I think she's gotten enough coverage from non-gossip sources that we can live without that. I'm afraid there is no way to fulfill "avoid presenting women as "objects of heterosexual male appreciation."", since that's a noticeable fraction of Ratajkowski's career, but Sarah's other points have points, so to speak. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I welcome advice and assistance in contextualizing the sexist claims regarding the video. I am on a short clock for until Monday night or Tuesday. I will attempt to respond as soon as I can but would welcome assistance in presenting the controversy in proper balance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I am awaiting feedback above. However, I also need your opinion on this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you addressed my comments well. Here are a few minor issues that I'm sure you'll get to. I would like to read what SarahSV has to say about the latest version, though, as at least once she has been able to change my mind about approving. I won't necessarily agree with her (I already disagree with her on some points: hair and eye color on a model are fine; that someone's parents weren't married is unusual enough to be worth a line; ) but her arguments are always well written and sure to be interesting. The IP's edit removing the feminist controversy from the lead is, strangely enough, probably good. I think we should probably remove that she describes herself as a feminist from the lead altogether, as it's controversial, as SarahSV writes, and yet, we could only find one good source contesting it, so it's giving that one source too much weight to put it in the lead. Leave the bit about her being an activist in the lead, and keep the "feminist" controversy in the activism section. This might change if Sarah can find more sources contesting ER's feminism.
 * I have taken another stab at discussing being a feminist in the WP:LEAD. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was looking for more reliable sources about ER's feminism being questioned, and I found one; sort of. The source is reliable, the BBC, though I'm not at all sure that Sarah will want to be associated with the questioner, one Piers Morgan. . There is already a section on the Kardashian photo that this should go in. That at least makes 2 questioning ER's feminism; without at least two, it's wp:undue weight to mention it in the lead. Please feel free to find even better sources if you like (you, in this case, being plural, Tony or Sarah or whoever is interested). --GRuban (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are saying that we established a controversy about her feminism. A true controversy is something that should be in the LEAD. We have one critic saying she may be an opportunist and another saying she is a pseudo feminist, while a third says she is truly a feminist. Meanwhile her actions are being covered widely as a statement of some kind related to the female body. The lead says "Ratajkowski considers herself a feminist. Some support this claim, while others have questioned and challenged her on it." We present a supporter, a challenger and a questioner in the current version of the article. I think the current version of the lead hits it on the head in terms of summarizing the body, but feel free to suggest a specific revision.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sarah found an even better source that questions ER's feminism (it was just written yesterday, so I won't kick myself for not finding it when I looked): Charlotte Gill, "Kim Kardashian and Emily Ratajkowski are no feminists", The Independent, 1 April 2016. It discusses the Kardashian photo situation without being Piers Morgan (which is a noticeable plus). I think it would work fine in that section. In direct response to your paragraph, though, I'm not at all sure that "a true controversy is something that should be in the lead"; just because something is controversial doesn't necessarily mean it's important. Jimbo Wales's birth date is controversial, but surely doesn't make that much of an impact on his life. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article and I am not convinced the controversy about ER's feminism is one of them. From reading the article, she's primarily a model, secondarily an actress, her activism is tertiary, and this "is she a real feminist" controversy is probably a part of her being an activist, and not the most important part. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Actually, I would appreciate your advice on the latest stance by . I do not understand her comment that I am not making progress. If you can express a substantive actionable issue for me to address, I welcome that. I understand that the article could be improved by fresh eyes, but I can't do that myself. I have requested a source review at WT:FAC. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are multiple issues in that diff link. The "naked photo" issue, I am conflicted on, I think I somewhat agree with Sarah, but not enough to oppose over, at least partly because the "it's a non-free image" that she is technically objecting about isn't really her main objection, which is that we would be objectifying women by displaying that photo, free or not. The "no progress is being made" issue is also twofold - you have made lots of progress on adding criticism of Blurred Lines and ER's claim to feminism, but Sarah's main objection there is about the "grammar, punctuation, repetition and flow", which, I am afraid, I can't help directly with very much. When I find a specific issue I point it out, but when I read a sentence that seems awkward, I can't always explain how to make it better. (That's one of the reasons I don't do much in FAs!) You could try and just rewrite the sentences that Sarah points out, all of them, then, after demonstrating that you are actively trying to work with her on this, ask her if that made them better. --GRuban (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You also need to get with the times. It is not the case that nude photography=objectification of women. Ratajkowski is proud of that photo as the photo that propelled her career. She is not out there suing anyone about it. She also exhibits an ongoing pride in publishing nude photos of herself with Time yesterday publishing an article on her nude postings noting her opinion that nudity does not equal trashy. Have you been following the recent additions to the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, I'm not going to oppose over this. It's just that I can see both sides, and think that Sarah has a noticeable point. Yes, I understand Ratajkowski doesn't see it as derogatory to her; but there are plenty of women readers who will look at it and see it as derogatory to them. As women. Justly or not, that's what they will see. They won't look at what the naked woman on the cover of the men's magazine thinks, they will merely look at the fact she is there, naked, on the cover of the men's magazine, there in our Featured Article. There was a somewhat similar issue recently at TFA, in fact, a conflict about putting Hitler Diaries as Today's featured article on April Fool's Day. The authors of the article said that it wasn't meant to offend anyone by implying that we should treat Hitler as a funny joke. Yet that is how it would have been received. Justly or not. Of course this isn't to the same scale, which is why I'm not going to oppose over it, but it is in the same vein. Again, I can also see the other side, so I'm not going to oppose over this, so if you want to argue with me about it, you may, but you'll be wasting your energies that would be more useful on something I will oppose over, or someone who will oppose over it. --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , Well, there are two sides to every story. There are people offended that WP has maps recognizing certain boundaries of the Palestine (region). WP should not remove such maps. The image serves a clear purpose and has passed image review whether SV wishes to ignore that purpose or not. I am not going to look at this article much again until next Tuesday. I may look at some of the prose, but I am hoping that the newly involved editor will to a copyedit in the mean time. I concede that the article may not pass at TFA, but let me try to get it through FAC first.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Activism section - "Ratajkowski, is outspoken on her interest in going beyond" - remove comma, and what does "outspoken on her interest" mean? Can those half-dozen words be removed and just say what she supports? --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excess removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But the grammar is still a problem and the sentence doesn't really mean anything: "Ratajkowski is outspoken on her interest in using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality." Outspoken about an interest in the implications of speaking out?


 * I think you should ask that the nomination be archived. Better to give yourself some distance (i.e. don't read it for a while), then come back with fresh eyes, and when you've finished the first round of improvements, nominate it for peer review. SarahSV (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am still making progress, have more supports than opposes, and getting other interested editors involved. I am up against a time constraint in regards to my pursuit of a 25th birthday WP:TFA. I will continue to respond as time allows.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony, I think you should not nominate this for the main page for her 25th (or any other) birthday. That would come across as a little personal and strange, and it again makes the article appear promotional. SarahSV (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , That is incredibly non-sequitur. WP:TFA values articles on round number anniversaries, birthdays. Since when is nominating an article based on a birthday personal, strange or promotional. I have done so in the past, most recently for Tommy Amaker's 50th birthday. The only reason it was personal is that I am a University of Michigan alum and he is a former Michigan Wolverines men's basketball coach. There is nothing wrong with that type of personal connection. I am a fan of Michigan basketball as I am a fan of Ms. Ratajkowski. There is nothing promotional about it. How is it any different for me to nominate Ratajkowski for her 25th birthday than to have nominated Amaker for his 50th?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Tony here; there is nothing wrong with trying to feature an article on the subject's birthday. --GRuban (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * and, I am experimenting with a modelling coverography (like a discography or filmography) at Chiara_Ferragni. Should I add something like that to Emily Ratajkowski. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How large will it turn out to be? We don't want to take up most of the already pretty large article with a list. --GRuban (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it will be long eventually, but that is good. It is like a discography or filmography. Almost all successful performers have separate articles for theirs when they become long.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. I somehow think it takes less time to pose for a cover than to write a book or record a disc or have a non-bit role in a film. In fact, I think it takes a comparable amount of time to, say, writing a single article for a journalist; in articles about journalists, we do list a few of their most notable articles, but we don't list every single one they ever wrote. Similarly, I think we probably want to list a few of the most notable covers, but not every single one. I would think it would give more ammunition to the people saying that there is unnecessary detail. But I won't necessarily oppose over it, we'd have to see what it looks like. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I had hoped for some input at WT:FASHION. I can mock up something for EmRata next week. I am just on an hour break and will not have much time until Monday night or Tuesday to look at things. I have a source review request in and will take a look at sources next week as time permits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Here is what a mockup looks like: Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I never got your comment on this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can put it in, it's not too long, and might be a sufficient way to list notable photographers she's worked with. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, looking over the article and comparing to Sarah's well organized and legitimate objections.
 * 1, the main one, well-written prose, as I wrote, I am not perfect at, where I can find specific tweaks I'll present them, and you've been good at fixing them, so I assume you will keep doing this. No objection from me.
 * 2, verifiable against high quality sources, Sarah has a point. You removed some, but still have several lines sourced to The Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, and Coed, which are tabloids and gossip mags. Replace them with better sources (for example, here are some better sources for ER supporting Sanders Marie Claire women's/fashion mag; Washington Examiner, political mag; Huffington Post, political online; there are others) or if you can't, remove the lines. There is plenty of content sourced by reliable sources, that we can afford to lose a few lines that can only be sourced to tabloids.
 * 3, neutrality meaning documenting criticism of Blurred Lines and ER's feminism, this was the main one that I brought up, and you've been very responsive. No objection left.
 * 4, non-free images: as I wrote, that seems a cover for the real objection, which is that the image may be seen as offensive to some readers, and while I personally agree with Sarah, I can see your view enough that I won't oppose over it.
 * 5, unnecessary detail, you've been fairly responsive to requests to remove irrelevant content, the content that is left I see as an extension of #2 - removing the lines that can only be sourced to low quality sources will leave the ones that higher quality sources write about, which is a fair argument that they could be necessary.
 * So essentially we're down to Sarah's point #2. If you remove the low quality sources, and where necessary removing the content that can only be sourced to them, and will keep being responsive to what little individual issues can be found, I will support. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Do I have you back on board?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You got most of it. I'd recommend still removing
 * The Daily Something (tabloid) article "‘Blurred Lines’ hottie is feeling the Bern" (I think I give better sources for her Sanders support somewhere around here)
 * I found those sources and included them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "She got the part through a New York City "cattle call" audition and a subsequent Los Angeles reading with Affleck and Fincher.[79] Fincher was seeking an actress who could bring a divisive element to the film." - those seem too much detail. So she got a small part through an audition and a reading, that's pretty much how actresses get parts; the "divisive element" is a bit vague. Either specify what it means or remove it ... but only specify it if it is really important, and not just any attractive actress would have done ... which seems unlikely.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Gill ... admits she is in the minority, but felt " - this is one tense mix I won't accept. Either both present or both past.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * same sentence "...that the letter was trite and boring" - the article does not say trite, it says rambling and dull. I can accept boring as a synonym to dull, but can't see trite as a synonym of either that or rambling. I think you should just say rambling and dull, two words, especially when specifically attributed to Gill, are not plagiarism.
 * Doesn't the "Pass the violin." support trite?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Trite means "cliche", "overused", "banal", while "pass the violin" means "melodramatic", "overemotional", "exaggerated"; not really the same thing. Arguably "pass the violin" really means "I don't like her, so want to write a petty personal attack", but we can't write that. Gad what a mean article. IMHO, the important lines in Gill's article aren't the criticisms of ER's partial autobiography, as much as lines like: "she wants to fight against the objectification and oppression of women’s bodies, yet she happily profits from her ability to titillate men... endorsed art that demeans and dehumanises femkind..." etc. ("Femkind"? Yes, femkind. When you write for the Independent you get to make up words.) --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * but honestly that's nitpicking. I'll assume you'll either do those or present strong reasons why not, assuming you do, I can support. --GRuban (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hang on,, I object to your comment that my opposition to the non-free image is "a cover for the real objection, which is that the image may be seen as offensive to some readers." It isn't a cover for anything, and certainly not that it might seem offensive to some readers, a point I haven't raised at all.


 * My objection to the image is that it is a non-free, professional image of a living person, and that the policy is being ignored because it's an image of a naked woman. Its use here is sexist and gratuitous, both directly but also indirectly because the usual objections to non-free in BLPs have been magically suspended for it. The use of the image (along with other factors) makes this appear to be an article written by men for men, and this is exactly the sort of thing we're supposed to look out for on Wikipedia.


 * I've had several FAs promoted and I've had to remove non-free images that I felt were important. I've reviewed around 120 FACs, including several image reviews, and I've watched hundreds more, so I know that the image policies are strictly applied at FAC.


 * No convincing argument has been made that the image satisfies: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." See WP:FACR and WP:NFCC. SarahSV (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , this seems to be more WP:POV arguing. How are you absolutely certain that here and Masem & in FAC2 took one look at the image and said "We absolutely must keep this naked hottie for all to see." rather than considered WP:NFCC. I too am an experienced FAC nominator. I am not as sure as you are that the first thing the image reviewers look for is a way to get hot nude images on WP. I can't tell you how many images I have had to remove from articles for promotion. At FAC Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain and at GAC Joanne Gair have had so many helpful images removed it still hurts. Every time I look at Gair's article I wonder why I was forced to choose between the Eat 'Em and Smile cover and the Kaleidoscope cover.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict, this was responding to two paragraphs above): In case I was not clear, this is a list of my objections, even though they were based on your excellent list; I'm not claiming that I'm strictly restating your objections here, or that answering my objections will necessarily satisfy yours. Obviously my writing that this seems like a cover is not simply restating your view, it's my opinion of it; you don't just say "it's non-free use" and stop there, every time you say "it's non-free use and it's sexist". And your writing "it's sexist" is the same as "offensive to some readers", specifically because we know for a fact that at least one rather important person doesn't think it's sexist, namely Ratajkowski. She feels quite strongly that her right to pose sexily is feminist, in fact; and at least in the reliable sources we have found for this article she's gotten more support for saying that than she has gotten criticism. So we can't claim "it's sexist" as some sort of absolute fact as "it's black and white" or "it's a magazine cover" or "she's naked", it is an opinion; "it's sexist" is only going to be considered true by some readers. And as to the NFCC point as such, well, Tony responds that it is a vital artistic work; I'm not that up on the distinction there, so have to leave any objection to those who are. I similarly won't be backing the image as vital to the article either. Anyway, that's my explanation for why I'm not objecting based on it. What's your point? That I should be objecting based on this? Well, while I respect you highly, we are different people. Or is it that you think that I object to your objection? I don't, and in fact agree that the image will be perceived as sexist by a large fraction of viewers. It's just that many of those readers who will think the image is sexist will, as you brought up in point 3, consider most of Ratajkowski's career to be sexist, and will object to us featuring her article at all, not just this image in it. After all, this image is, basically, what she does. So while I personally would prefer we feature the article and not the image, and therefore offend fewer readers, I am not going to oppose promotion just on that splitting of hairs. You may, of course, and I don't see your objection here as invalid, just not strong enough for me, personally, to back to the extent of opposing promoting the article over. OK? --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Saying it's sexist is not the same (not the same at all) as saying it might be offensive to some readers. We wouldn't object to a racist article just because some readers might be offended.


 * I don't want to insult anyone, but I'm experiencing two men (particularly Tony) explain to me what feminism and sexism are. I see an image review from someone involved in Gamergate. And I see an article about a woman that was clearly written by a man for men. So this is a very typical issue in terms of Wikipedia's sexism, a problem that has been noticed by many mainstream sources, not only by me.


 * That's over and above that the article is poorly written, a point noted in all the FACs (writing from memory). Good writing isn't something that is tacked on at the end, something a copy editor can quickly offer. Writing reflects the way the writer structures their thoughts.


 * A good writer would find words to deal (briefly) with the sexism allegations against the subject, and would find a way to write this article so that it didn't reflect the sexism of many of the sources. That's the kind of high-quality, disinterested writing I hope Tony can find for this piece, either by doing it himself or by finding someone to help. But I think he needs space to think about it. Trying to achieve it while it's at FAC won't work. SarahSV (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Yes, that did hurt; thanks for saying it wasn't intended to. If it seemed like I was trying to explain to you feminism or sexism are, I apologize; that was not my intent. But will you agree that Ratajkowski does go to some lengths to explain what they are? And that she disagrees that the picture is sexist? And that she is backed in her opinion on that by lots of sources, cited in the article? Again, I more agree with your opinion, if I am allowed to call it an opinion. But it does seem that your view is that what you are saying is fact, while what she is saying is mere opinion. --GRuban (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology. I'm not sure what you mean about R's view of the picture. I feel as though I'm having to argue that the grass is green, and this is another common experience for women on Wikipedia. I can't keep doing it, so this may have to be my last comment on this point.


 * Looking at it in terms of policy: there is a mainstream opinion among high-quality sources that the video is misogynist, as are the lyrics. The article must reflect the mainstream view, per WP:DUE. The article can include R's view and other minority views in proportion, but it ought not to present the minority view as a majority one, or place the minority view in WP's voice. SarahSV (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree with that second paragraph, but don't see how it leads to objection. Does that bear in any way on the image in our article? Because I don't see how. Or is your objection that the article still doesn't reflect that mainstream view of BL? Well, then, we're veering off topic ... but I guess we can do that. I don't think that the article does represent the mainstream view as a minority, I do think the article has been improved to the point that it clearly states that BL was criticized more than supported by the world, but it was supported by ER. "Over 20 University student unions banned or condemned the song", that's pretty clear the world objected to it. The fact that it gives most space to ER's views - well, they're her views, the article isn't about BL, it's about her, so as long as it makes clear that these are her views, not the majority opinion, that's perfectly appropriate. It's like it lets her say that she was pressured growing up without giving equal time to her peers and parents, though she is one and they are many; or that she didn't like her college, even though, no doubt, the majority opinion is that it's a fine college; surely we won't be insisting that every time she gives an opinion, the world's opinion be automatically given more space than hers? Again, this is the space for my objections. I don't object due to this. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't write much about controversial topics. I am not sure what proper presentation is for controversial topics. I have presented about equal weight on both sides of the argument of whether the song is sexist. However, I have also presented equal time to both sides of the debate of whether Ratajkowski has a feminist message. I think far more support her arguments than oppose. I think presenting equal time to both sides is the fairest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , can you reevaluate the current content and cap resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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


 * , let me know if you see anything else that you feel is extraneous.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

 * Comment: The last paragraph of lede sect is good, but looks a bit short, perhaps it could be expanded a tad bit more with additional content of the same topic. Also in the lede intro sect in that same paragraph, terms could be wikilinked: women's health, feminist, and women's rights. Unfortunately, Checklinks tool shows many problem links -- this can easily be solved by adding parameters "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" to citation fields using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive -- but keeping the original links in there for posterity. Problem link defined as any link with anything other than blank in results field -- eg 200, 301, 404 (dead link), etc. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have done some massaging of the WP:LEAD, but don't know how much details about specific issues should be included at this stage of her career. She is not at a stage where any issue is a life's work. I think the current brief advocacy and activist summary is a proper weight of these issues in the context of her entire biography. I have addressed all the reference issues. Any remaining checklink flags are false.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Lede intro sect looks a bit better. I took another look at the viability of the hyperlinks used in the article references. Unfortunately, Checklinks tool still shows many problem links -- this can easily be solved by adding parameters "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" to citation fields using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive -- but keeping the original links in there for posterity. Problem link defined as any link with anything other than blank in results field -- eg 200, 301, 404 (dead link), etc. There are still lots of problem links -- including redirect links and even a red-highlighted dead-link in the hyperlinks. These need to be addressed. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have just opened the Checklinks and the only color I see is green (26 links). In past reviews at FA and GA, it has been my experience that the two colors depicted at the top of the checklinks page as Broken are the only ones that I need to address. I do not see any red-highlighted links at the moment. I am on my backup computer, which is running Firefox 45.0.1 in Windows 7. this series of edits yesterday addressed all the broken links that I could. At the time it appeared that one or two remaining red-highlighted links were giving a false reading where the reference was good. However, I no longer see any red-highlighted links in the checklinks tool.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. what is a redirect link and what is the problem with it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please address the problem links at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Emily_Ratajkowski -- Problem link defined as any link with anything other than blank in results field -- eg 200, 301, 404 (dead link), etc. Please do your best to address all links, if possible. Please at the very least archive all those "green" links -- that means the reader has to be redirected to a 2nd hyperlink instead of the original one -- that is a very bad sign and an indicator the link may go dead in the future. Thank you ! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oddly, ref 11 from www.independent.ie has returned to a pink color. An attempt to add an archive URL from the Wayback Machine yields the following error: "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt." The ref remains active and accessible. I will get on to the 26 green ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Try http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php. --GRuban (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have archived most problem links We have gone from 26 green-highlighted links and 1 red-highlighted link to 5 green-highlighted links. I can't find any archives for the remaining 5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Above, gave a great recommendation to try http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php -- that could be used to archive the remaining links. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the remaining issues with webcitation.org. However, it seems that the checklinks tool seems to be vacillating on which refs have issues. As I refreshed at different times, it showed 3, 4 or 5 articles in need of being addressed. I hope the changes I have made account for all articles that are a concern.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Emily_Ratajkowski shows a couple problem areas still, but good job on the rest !!! These appear to be links: http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/stunning-star-of-controversial-music-video-reveals-irish-roots-29418618.html and http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/fincher-s-gone-girl-goes-far-on-star-power/article_5c3b3985-f483-5a37-9ad2-7069d96189b7.html and https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/news/kim-kardashian-thanks-emily-ratajkowski-154300557.html?ref=gs &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see any remaining problems at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Emily_Ratajkowski, but I have archived the links you mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Overusage of quote boxes with large size quotations -- I note at the end of a peer review a couple reviews ago, the article was down to one quote box. I'm not sure how or when, but now the article has two pull quote boxes. Both of them have quotations that are way too large. Strongly recommend removing both of them, and going back through the entire article to paraphrase and/or trim down quotations wherever possible. Certainly those two quote boxes are way too large and unwieldy. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the recently added quotebox. Since the paragraph has numerous critical commentaries, I will leave it to the reader to find out what is so interesting by navigating to the source and its secondary summaries. I will stand behind the longstanding quotebox if it is not too objectionable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I've had another look. That quote box is WAY too big and too large of an excerpted quote. Strongly recommend either remove it or significantly trim it to about one sentence. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I proposed a way to trim the remaining quote. -Sigeng (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to ponder the quote situation. I can support the remaining quote. However, what is left is so sparse, I am almost inclined to just roll it into the prose. In fact, I would probably prefer a trimmed version of the other quotebox that I removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks MUCH better with the one brief short pithy quote in the quote box, nicely done! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. My thanks to for successfully addressing my above comments about the WP:LEAD, checklinks, and use of quotations. The article has much improved since my prior support at Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1. Good luck Tony, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

 * Images of the 3, there's only one non-free, and that is the cover that is documented to have launched her career. While we generally frown on NFC on living persons, exceptions are made if such images are extensive subjects of discussion, which is the case here, so that non-free should be fine -- though I have added an "upright" to the portrait-oriented image per MOS:IMAGES as well as the fact that that image was the largest on the page, which (inadvertently) draws the eye to the tasteful nude rather than her main "real life" image. --M ASEM (t) 02:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Tony changed Masem's heading from "Comments from Masem" to "Image review by Masem." I don't know whether Masem intended this to be the FAC's image review. If he did, the FACR require that non-free images "satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content" (NFCC).


 * The NFCC policy says (point 2.8): "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."


 * That has not yet been argued for, and I can't see how this image satifies that requirement. Claiming fair use to allow a photograph of a naked woman to be added to her BLP seems wrong-headed, and the use of it appears sexist and gratuitous. If she wanted free naked images of herself to exist, she could create them. This is why non-free images of BLPs are almost never allowed. SarahSV (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (added link SarahSV (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC))
 * , Please note that I created all of the sections. Masem never put a title on his section. I was trying to keep Cirt's comments together and created a section. As I have said before read the text related to the image. You keep talking about me sticking a naked photo in the article and refusing to discuss the content in the article about how that specific photo changed her life. If you read how the photo changed her life and then want to discuss it, that might make more sense. You seem to have had a fair number of FAs. You should know an image review when you see one. That is an image review, unless I am mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining about the heading. Whenever I mention the image, the point is missed. It is not about who has discussed it. It is not about that. It is this: I do not see how "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."


 * You are saying that Robin Thicke liked the image and wanted her to appear in his video. Okay. But I don't know why we have to see the image itself in the article to be able to understand that. That is what you have to argue to the satisfaction of independent image reviewers.


 * It is a non-free, professional image of a living person, an image with monetary value, so your argument would have to be a very strong one. I would like to know whether there are other recent, professional, non-free images of a living person, images with monetary value, that have been allowed in BLPs. SarahSV (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , You are looking at this as a random photo. It is a photographic art at the highest levels. The subject is herself a stunningly beautiful subject and this artistic black-and-white photo is executed in a manner that stood out from the myriad of magazine cover subjects in a way that enticed certain powers to solicit Ratajkowski. In order to understand the artistic splendor, you must see it. If you look at that picture and do not understand the caliber of artistry, I can not help you. Several other people who either saw it or were writing in secondary sources about those who saw it have noted the significance of this single subject. The prose of the article and the WP:CAPTION of the photo spell this out. This is a picture that is worth a thousand words and more. It is rare that a persons career is propelled by a single image. If it is, that image could be a fair use subject that passes NFCC as this one does. You have to review the sourced article content to understand the importance of the photo although the image CAPTION should make it clear enough. After reading the current version of the article, an explanation of how she was selected to be in "Blurred Lines" is relevant and this picture is the explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see what you're describing in that image. I see a c. 20-year-old naked woman who has been professionally positioned and lit, and who has had her hair and make-up done by professionals. The image caused her to be picked to be one of several models in an unpleasant video.


 * But if it's as artistically important as you say, all the more reason for Wikipedia not to assume the right to use it. (And if the artistry is the issue, it would be more appropriate in the photographer's BLP, not the model's.) Can you point to any other professional portrait of a living person, a photograph that still has monetary value, for which we claim fair use in that person's BLP? SarahSV (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I imagine hundreds of images at Category:Fair use magazine covers are professional portrait photographs of living person that still have monetary value. I have done articles that focus on a few of them such as Demi's Birthday Suit and More Demi Moore. However, neither of these changed Moore's career because she was already famous. Thus, neither of these rises to a level of importance to be claimed as Fair use in her biography. I don't know how many images we have that are THE IMAGE that is credited with making a person famous. If we had an image of Demi Moore that is the image that caused her to be famous, it should be in her article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm not at all hard line when it comes to claiming fair use. But it seems obvious that the attraction of this image is that she's naked. That's a reason to avoid the image, not a reason to use it. We already have a free image of her, at roughly the same age. There is nothing about the naked image that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, or where "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Note: "of the article topic." SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand your point. Where in the article do we discuss her nakedness in the photo? The photo does not support any prose regarding nakedness that I see. Please point out where nakedness is relevant. The prose that I am talking about is that the image made her the chosen subject to become famous. If there is any content regarding the nakedness of the photo in the article please remove it (the prose not the photo). However, I do believe that the sole reason why you object to the photo is that she is naked. Can you point me to the policies in WP:NFCC regarding naked photos.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about nakedness in the article, so I don't follow your point.

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

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

You've written an article that is in large measure about the objectification of women. But Wikipedia should not be part of that objectification. We should describe it, not do it. SarahSV (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , this seems to be WP:POV arguing. Neither this article nor the song is about objectification of women. You have expressed that we should ignore the opposing view regarding the opposite side, which is reliably sourced by both a critic and an involved party. There are more sources, but this article is not the place for further sources. However, it is not a place where sources for the other side should be ignored as you suggest. If you would read the sources that you suggest we ignore, you would see that the song has much more content about liberating women than about objectifying them. If you would read the content that I have added to address Ratajkowski's brand of femism, you will see that she believes in a different kind of equality for women. She does not believe sex is either a service a woman provides to man or a thing that a man takes from a woman, but rather a mutually enjoyed experience. She does not believe that men should be able to censor women's expression of their sexuality (in music videos, photographs, art or what have you). You insist all nudity is objectification and that it can not be art or entertainment.
 * , for a long time Jessica Alba had a Playboy cover image. This was deleted at FFD. One difference is that Ratajkowski is proud of that photo as the photo that propelled her career. She is not out there suing anyone about it. Another is that she is prominent in this week's Time promoting her belief that nudity does not equal trashy. Another difference is that in this case, the image is one in which the image made people notice Ratajkowski and select her for other work. We have reliably sourced text confirming this. The prose can not make the reader understand why seeing a specific image jump started Ratajkoowski's career by making people select her. The image is an artistically executed nude black-and-white. We can not teach the reader what was so special about the image without showing it to them. You repeatedly state, that nude imagery=objectification. Ratajkowski's entire point is that nudity can be empowering to the subject. The image is not presented to show nudity. The image is presented to demonstrate the work of art that propelled her career. Read yesterday's Time article showing that Ratajkowski does not believe nudity=trashy. Get with the times. It is 2016.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That sentence at the start of this remark (first paragraph, starting with SlimVirgin, You) is a personal attack. Please strike or remove it. The rest can stay, you are making a fine argument (except possibly the line where you remind Sarah what year it is, that's not very useful, I somehow suspect she knows what year it is) that doesn't need to be diluted by calling people names. I'd appreciate it if you struck or removed that sentence. I've pointed out so many sentences in Emily Ratajkowski itself that you have removed or rephrased that I feel justified in hoping you will similarly remove or rephrase this one in what is merely this FAC discussion. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to point to WP:POV, but I have softened the statement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|43px]] --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin

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

Tony has suggested that parts of my oppose aren't actionable. Because my earlier post has been broken up and may not be clear enough, I'm clarifying my oppose for the delegates.
 * 1) FACR 1(a): "well-written: its prose is ... of a professional standard":
 * The writing is problematic. One example:
 * "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood.[147] ... She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement ... Planned Parenthood has presented Ratajkowski as a spokesperson for its birth control support.[150] Ratajkowski, is outspoken on her interest in going beyond speaking out in favor of birth control and using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality."[151]
 * This has become time-consuming and no progress is being made, so I'm going to stop commenting for now. It's worth making clear that my primary objection is to the writing, per 1(a). There are problems throughout with grammar, punctuation, repetition and flow. Even issues that have been pointed out have not been fixed. In addition, there is unnecessary quoting, unnecessary clutter, and a promotional tone, which includes placing the opinions of the subject in Wikipedia's voice.
 * 1) FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources":
 * It relies in part on tabloid sources and low-quality gossip sites, which violates WP:BLPSOURCES.
 * 1) FACR 1(d): "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias:
 * The article seems promotional rather than a disinterested account of her life and work. For example, the first sentence notes that she made her name after appearing in the "Blurred Lines" video "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries." She was the most prominent model in that video. The lead doesn't mention how controversial the lyrics and video were (especially the semi-nude version). Both were widely regarded as misogynist; the lyrics promoted violence against women. The Guardian called the song "the most controversial of the decade"; the video "generated its own separate yet overlapping controversy."  To mention the number ones without mentioning the controversy is a violation of WP:LEAD and an example of the article's promotional flavour. If there were just a few examples of this, I would try to fix them, but the same tone runs throughout the whole article.
 * 1) FACR 3: Non-free images must satisfy WP:NFCC:
 * The use of the nude image strikes me as gratuitous. I don't see how it "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic." I've lost track of how the "subject of commentary" criterion is applied, but this is a professional image with monetary value, not to mention an example of the kind of image we ought not to add to biographies of women. It's just an essay, but please see Writing about women: avoid presenting women as "objects of heterosexual male appreciation."
 * 1) FACR 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail":
 * There's a lot of unnecessary detail and quoting. It would benefit from that material and the lower quality sources being removed, then a rewrite to introduce a more disinterested tone. It would be shorter but better.

SarahSV (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Amended SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) -- Tony, my first post was split up by your replies, and you're welcome to continue doing that below. But I'd like the above not to have replies added inside it, so I'm moving those here. SarahSV (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

[Re: point 1, lack of progress]:
 * , Your comment that "This has become time-consuming and no progress is being made" is very unusual. the progress made in the 30 hours preceding that comment was tremendous. We continue to disagree on many issues, but your active involvement in the article is the best way to help it get better. I have requested a source review since you are concerned about sources and it seems that we may have come upon an interested copyeditor in . We are making progress and I encourage your continued thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Re: point 3, neutrality]:
 * I am not averse to contextualizing this issue. I will not have much time between now and Tuesday to do so. I will definitely look at this on Tuesday, but am welcome to the suggestions of other editors to augment this issue. I am about to get back out on the road for Uber. It is a holiday weekend and people need to get out on the road and home from work, etc. I'm off to hit the roads for most of the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When you say "this issue," I assume you mean the mention of the song/video in the first sentence. But that was just one example of the neutrality problems. Another example: in discussing her involvement with Planned Parenthood, you write: "She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." The source is an interview with her, where she is the one who says: "I had a lot of people who were like, ‘Wow that’s so brave of you.'". But this is repeated in Wikipedia's voice (and "gotten" needs to be changed). I think the problem is that, as you said somewhere, you're a big fan of hers, and this shows in the writing all the way through the article. SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

[Re: point 4, non-free image]:
 * I don't think your contention here is WP:NPOV. We have rehashed this image in all sorts of forums. Have a look at the last FAC. This image is the work of art that propelled her career. Period. There would be no discussion of her being on the main page without this image. Read the text.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (I notice that several people who normally rail against non-free images are strangely absent or compliant when it comes to naked women.)


 * WP:FACR says of images: "Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content ..."


 * The latter policy (WP:NFCC) says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."


 * I don't see how using that image in this article fulfills that criterion, and I can't see any agreement, in the previous FACs, that it did. There were objections to the image in both FACs. The objection was left unresolved in the first FAC. In the second FAC, the "critical commentary" issue was addressed, but that's just part of the guideline WP:NON-FREE.


 * The NFCC requirement – "would significantly increase readers' understanding" – has not been discussed that I can see. SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The prior FAC had two different image reviewers ( and ) come to an agreement that the image satisfies all NFCC requirements as two FAC vets ( and ) looked on. I am not qualified to debate this. However, unless they are wavering, what is the point of reraising this issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see where the second FAC reached an agreement about that image. I can see where they discussed whether there had been commentary. But even if they had reached an agreement, this is a new FAC and a new objection. That the image has been questioned or opposed in all three FACs should give you pause.


 * FACR requires FACs to meet Non-free content criteria (NFCC). NFCC says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That's the standard that has not been met, in my view, except in the empty sense that a naked image of any BLP subject might increase readers' understanding of them. SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The current version of this article has passed an image review above. Neither of us is an image reviewer. You might want to poke the image reviewer above or request a second opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

-
 * Writing and citation style: The article needs a copy edit, but it's harder than usual to read in edit mode because there are so many references within sentences. This is sometimes unavoidable when handling sensitive or contentious material, but in this article I can't see a need for it.
 * Citation style? WP:IC is now the prevailing form of citation. Thus, I have placed citations as close to the fact presented as possible using the usual forms of adjacency that I have used in my dozens of WP:FAs and hundreds of WP:GAs. When a particular contentious fact is part of a sentence this requires a citation within a sentence. There is absolutely no stylistic guide that opposes such a citation style to my knowledge and I have never seen a preference for averting such citations in any of the hundreds thousands of GA, PRs and FA reviews I have been involved in. It is generally considered a strength to have citations adjacent to facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am open to any copyeditting assistance that may be availed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on whether a sentence like I added here with mid-sentence WP:ICs is the type that you think causes the article to stray from MOS. If so, how would you like to see the sentence changed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony, I haven't mentioned the MoS, except that the article violates LEAD by omitting the controversy, and LEAD is part of the MoS. My concern is that the writing needs to be improved throughout. The article has a kind of breathless PR tone to it. (I'm not suggesting that you're formally doing PR for her; I'm talking only about the writing.) But before the writing can be fixed, the low-quality sources should be removed. SarahSV (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Quality of sources: Low-quality sources should be removed, including the Daily Mail. See WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." And FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."
 * WP:RS is a difficult issue in regards to subjects of modest notability. If we were dealing with a politician at a G7 conference, we could source content from the most esteemed types of sources. However, models appearing in a Fashion Week runway may garner minimal coverage from even moderately notable sources. Take a sentence like "For Fall/Winter 2016 fashions Ratajkowski again walked New York Fashion week for Marc Jacobs on February 18 and also made her Paris Fashion Week debut for Miu Miu on March 9, 2016." We could source that she appeared in the Paris Fashion Week with several reliable sources such as Elle or In Style. However, if we want to make it clear it was her Paris Fashion Week debut, I am having trouble finding a better source than Daily Mail. I would gladly upgrade sources as you suggest, but in terms of the claimed fact that she "made her Paris Fashion Week debut" I don't see options out there. I might concede that Daily Mail is a somewhat WP:QUESTIONABLE source, but is this fact a "contentious claim" requiring a better source? You need to examine fact/source pairs. For certain less contentious facts, lesser sources may be acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the fact that it was her first time at this show really important? I admit, I am not a fashion expert, but our Paris Fashion Week article says it's one of four, so there are at least three similar ones, and plenty of other shows, perhaps of slightly lesser cachet, but still deserving of our articles, six in Category:Fashion events in France alone. As a world-famous model, won't she eventually get to many, if not most, of them? Surely we won't individually note her first time at each? OK, I'll buy perhaps her first time at any runway fashion show might be worth a mention ... but at least according to the Irish Independent - not a gossip paper - that was at the New York Fashion Week, not Paris. So is the fact the Paris appearance was her first there really such a big deal? --GRuban (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One last thing before I head out for a day of driving. In regard to this, runway modelling and print modelling each has four majors (like golf or tennis) in the same four cities (London, Milan, Paris and New York). These are the Fashion weeks and the Vogue. The case could be made that a FA level article of a world class model presents details about the accomplishments in terms of these majors, IMO. However, we need the opinion of WP:FASHION regs in this regard. I don't know if anyone currently active in this discussion qualifies as knowledgeable about that profession.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the Irish Independent, but since it has a picture from the actual runway, I have added it as a second RS for her debut.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked around at other topics that have majors. Roger_Federer discusses his first Austrailian Open and U.S. Open wins although he had already won a major in 2003. Meanwhile, Tiger Woods and Professional golf career of Tiger Woods do not make such references to later firsts. Marathoning has 6 World Marathon Majors. Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich's article has the following sentence "On 2 November 2014, Kipsang won the New York City Marathon in 2:10:59 in his first appearance", despite earlier Major Marathon wins and appearances. I see your point, but it is not necessarily trivia to mention premiers at later majors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are discussing wins, not appearances. Frankly, if the first appearance for a model at that particular major were a big deal, then presumably a fashion magazine or column would mention it. Instead it's being mentioned by a gossip mag. --GRuban (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary detail: It seems to include everything that is known about her. Do we need to know how old her parents were when she was born and that they were not married? Same in the infobox: there's no point in adding that she has brown eyes and hair when we can see that from the photograph.
 * It is odd to discuss unnecessary detail as a complaint and then to point to standard inclusions in a biography. Note for a model, eye and hair color are important enough information for this persons occupation that that parameters exist for these items of data. For a model/actress, we can not go by the color in a picture because they often have to color their hair for roles and sometimes wear coloring contacts. For the average person, we may not care about their political affiliation, but we would not describe filling in that parameter as unusual for a politician. Similarly, for a model, physical attributes are common biographical summary elements. I don't know if this type of issue has led to Deepika Padukone being a FA without an infobox. If so, I am open to understanding this issue further. In terms of depicting what type of family one is born into, it is not remotely out of line to describe whether a person was an orphan, bastard, adopted, born to unknown parents or what have you. She is of unusual stock being from unmarried American parents living abroad. As a discussant, you are generally suppose to point out actionable issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you have shown in this edit that you are aware of which parameters have been deprecated and which have not. Obviously, if the remaining parameters are not deprecated, they must serve the readers in a way that is desirable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutrality: She made her name from the Blurred Lines video, but no mention is made of how controversial that was. It's also very contentious to say in WP's voice that she's a feminist. Feminism is a broad church but not this broad; the Blurred Lines video could not be further removed from feminism. If she has said she regards herself as a feminist, we can consider quoting her, but with caution: it almost takes us into fringe territory, in the sense that we'd have trouble finding an opposing view simply because it's unlikely that anyone would have responded.
 * Please note I have added a quote in which she presents herself as a feminist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ratajkowski's brand of feminism involves promoting female sexual empowerment and sexuality. I.e., a woman should be free to share her body in art, social activity, publicity, or private activity as she desires without shame. She has experienced the extreme opposite type of bodyshaming that feminists usually fight. Usually, it is the woman who strays from conventional attractiveness (maybe by being fat&mdash;possibly due to pregnancy, or life stress) that endures pressure. She has, by virtue of being almost the symbol of conventional attractiveness, been subject to pressure not to excite or arouse. Freely sharing her body in a music video is part and parcel to her brand of feminism. I will attempt to find some quotations to make this brand of feminism more clear to the reader. Feminist seek equal treatment for women. If guys can rap about women trying to get on their magicsticks and talk about their conquests, why can't a woman even express enjoyment of sexual expression. She feels women should be able to talk about sexual activity as freely as men and express their sexuality with no more restriction than men. I would enjoy guidance in taking the article in the direction of clarifying this to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , also note that there is extensive discourse regarding the contorversy surrounding "Blurred Lines". Additionally, there are quite extensive responses to Ratajkowski's brand of feminism. I did not find opposing views even last month when she was prominently in the public view for her brand of feminism. Can you even explain what an opposing view would be. It seems to me that the opposing view is in support of misogeny. Given the widespread response to her expression of her views and my inability to find opposing views, I feel like I am aware I may be missing something. Please help me to balance the article with opponents to her recent feminist manifesto.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The opposing view would be that she personally serves, encourages, abets, enables, and profits from the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women. Not saying whether I agree or disagree with that myself, but Slim's list of sources pretty much say that, though they focus more on Blurred Lines than on Ratajkowski, so ideally we'd find sources that focused on her. --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the topic at issue whether "Blurred Lines" promotes the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women or Ratajkowki's life embodies support of the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both. Specifically, we should present and summarize what reliable sources say, in proportion to what they say. Sarah gave four that focused on Blurred Lines, which is relevant considering how much of ER's article is directly or indirectly related to BL - it looks like maybe a third of the article. Here are a few more sources on ER specifically but I can't guarantee they're the best, you really need to do a few searches on it yourself . From my (very quick) searching, I see noticeably more sources supporting her as a sex-positive feminist than those attacking her as not a real feminist, but the other side does exist, so needs to at least be mentioned. Also, again, the criticism of BL is substantially more, and needs to be given. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K., I have the next 3 hours blocked out to try to address this issue a bit. I'm digging in now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Boss and Tonic is not a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony has added that the subject claims to be a feminist. If a woman says she's a feminist, I normally accept it (even if I disagree with her view of it), but there has to be a limit. The subject says of this video that it is "not sexist." Factor in the lyrics: "I'm gon' take a / Good girl / I know you want it ... / I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two / ... Nothin' like your last guy, he too square for you / He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that."


 * Jezebel's response to Robin Thicke's claim that the song is feminist: "Susan B. Anthony. Germaine Greer. bell hooks. Robin Thicke. We thank these brave warriors for all their hard work."


 * We don't allow BLP subjects to say whatever they want about themselves. If there are sources discussing a contentious and self-aggrandizing claim, include the sources and explain why the claim might be problematic. For example, if an arguably racist person claimed be an anti-racism campaigner, we wouldn't include that claim without comment. If there are no independent sources discussing a contentious claim, it's better to leave it out. SarahSV (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, I am not going to haphazardly jump in and add this text. I have not looked at how it is handled in the article for the song. I hope that there is content there that I can just sort of summarize here.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * General content and tone: The article pores over every detail of this very young woman's life and body, including her early sexualization (which made me very sad to read in the sources), with no awareness of the broader issues. Wanting to feature it on her birthday seems inappropriate for the same reason. In addition to that, we talk a lot about fixing the way women are represented on Wikipedia, but featuring this article would be a sprint in the wrong direction.
 * Are you saying that the article is deficient in contextualizing this biography amid broader issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , please let me know if I have figured out what is necessary to address your concern or please be so kind as to give me further advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, my advice is that you take the article off your watchlist for a few weeks, then return to it with fresh eyes. I've been in a situation many times where I've been writing something intensely to the point that every factoid is precious. Not reading the article for a few weeks or months has usually helped (but it is always difficult for writers to see the article the way readers do).


 * Then remove the lower quality sources and the quotes, and try to rewrite the rest in a more disinterested tone. Add more about the controversy over Blurred Lines, including a mention in the lead. As I said above, if you do that, the article will be shorter, but it will be considerably better. And remove the nude image; it cheapens the page and it really isn't compatible with the policies. Remember that women are among your readers. Write the article so that they won't feel disappointed or excluded. SarahSV (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , are you looking at the current version of the article. I have dissected the controversy into a four-faceted issue in the LEAD. What do you mean when you say mention it in the LEAD? Regarding the image, you are not reading the text about the image and it does not make sense for you to talk about the image if you are ignoring the explication about it in the text. Let me know if you decide to read either the current version of the LEAD or the prose about the image in the text. I presume if you have not read the current version of the LEAD, you have not read all of my changes to the main body regarding the issue that seemed important to you and are giving advice without looking at the article. I also presume you are asking me to remove the article without regard to the image reviewers opinions for reasons that surely have nothing to do with any relevant policy because if you were concerned with the policy regarding the images you would address those who understand them (the image reviewer). I will adhere to the directive of the image reviewers with regard to image policy (as should you) unless you are in fact a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You've added to the lead: "despite being controversial for many reasons including its nudity, plagiarism, and its themes of both sexual degradation and sexual freedom." Who other than the people involved in it said that its theme was sexual freedom? The lyrics promote violence against women. You've also added: "The song is criticized as being sexist in its degradation of women. However, the purpose of the video was to use exaggeration to humorously approach sexual degradation." However, etc, in Wikipedia's voice. The problem is that you have a strong opinion about this that isn't the view of the mainstream media.


 * But to repeat: my main FAC objection is the way the article is written and sourced. SarahSV (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have presented both sides, but you are ignoring the other side by overlooking arguments like Jennifer Lai's and discounting Williams'. I have clarified this by adding that it is a matter of perspective. You should not ignore that there are perspectives other than your own.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Question for Tony: I added an invisible question (which you removed) to "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood," asking what other women's health issues she has been involved in. Can you add something to the article or rewrite that sentence? SarahSV (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I might not have time to respond to everything discussed since I was last online, but here I have a few minutes before my morning workout. I have added "safe sex and birth control" to the main body because of a specific PSA. I am not sure if that PSA rises to a reason to include this point in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know what a PSA is, and I wasn't asking that you add something to the lead. The lead says she is involved in women's health issues other than for Planned Parenthood. So my question is: what other health issues? Safe sex and birth control are Planned Parenthood issues. SarahSV (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way a PSA is a Public Service Announcement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that we are not going to find much out about any involvement she may have had with PPA before she was a public person in 2013. We have a 2015 PSA and a statement that she has always been involved with PPA because of its role as a women's health organization. I can't find much about her charitable works prior to 2015. I could change "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood." to "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood." if you are more comfortable with that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or just "She has been a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood since [year]." SarahSV (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't really know the year of association. I just removed the word as I proposed above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , The article has undergone quite an overhaul since we last spoke. Can we discuss your current stance on the article. I think all sourcing issues have been addressed. Many details have been removed. If I have not gotten your support, can I get you off of your oppose at least.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony, responding to your ping, there are still problems with grammar, flow, too many trivial details, and poor sourcing. Also some odd phrases ("vanquish women at will"?) and some feel this and others assert that. Too much space given to her opinions. Too many quotes. It needs to be rewritten in a more disinterested tone, and it should summarize only the higher quality sources. SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from General Ization

 * While I appreciate the efforts of in developing this article and presenting it for FA consideration, I too must oppose.  Without repeating all of the criticisms above (with which I agree), the article as currently written is in serious need of trimming, in several sections is overtly promotional in tone, and is excessively linked to the point of creating a sea of blue.  The article clearly reflects a great deal of love on the part of its major contributors (my contributions being mostly reverting vandalism) for their subject – perhaps a little too much love for an encyclopaedic article.  General Ization   Talk   03:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , Feel free to present examples of extensive promotion. I can not improve the article without feedback. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the article no longer resembles what it did when you responded two weeks ago. Can you comment on your current stance on the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from White Arabian Filly

 * This is my first time having anything to do with FAC. I see two minor issues in the article, both in "Activism and advocacy". "Planned Parenthood" is written in the article as "Planned parenthood"--it's an official name, so needs to be capitalized. Also, a sentence lower down says "response to her involvement included comments on her bravery". That just doesn't make sense as a complete sentence to me. I think it's missing a "that" somewhere. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have converted Planned Parenthood to titlecase in the one instance in which it was not previously presented thusly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the typo in the phrase that you pointed out above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then support the FAC. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Nightscream
Comment Thanks for contacting me, but I don't really know what the criteria are for FA. I do copyedit lots of articles, and did a few edits yesterday to the article, but don't have time for anything else right now. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the FA criteria are presented at WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And what's the difference between those criteria and those for Good articles (of which I've written a few)? They read as mostly the same. In any event, I don't have time or interest to comprehensively read the article right now. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If a good article is "good", then a featured article is "really, really good". :-) More seriously, one of the key differences is that you need one reviewer to mark something as a good article, and you need many reviewers to mark something as a featured article. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Figureskatingfan
Support. This article fits the criteria for FAs. Yes, it has a lot of detail, but I think it should, given the subject. Models are subject to this kind of detail, and much of what's included is connected to her profession and career. The sources aren't the most reliable, but again, these are the kinds of publications that write about models like Ratajkowski, so I think it's appropriate to include them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Usually, you put me through a lot of editorial hoops before supporting an FA and I know it is encouraged for reviewers to make suggested improvements before supporting. Feel free to make suggestions later. I hope a support without editorial guidance carries weight because I was under the impression that such reviews may be discounted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Chaheel Riens
I'd have to duplicate Nightscream's comments - I'm not much up on Featured/Good articles, but am quite willing to dip toes in and edit to improve articles - and would fully support concentrating on this one for a while to get it up to the required standards. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am a very experienced editor and in my experience I have found that my strength is researching and gathering content. My featured article successes are usually the result of copyediting assistance from other interested editors. I would appreciate it if you would lend a hand to cleaning up the article. I especially need fresh eyes to consider MOS:TENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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


 * The prose is stilted. Examples, the second paragraph of the lead which has a number of sentences starting "She ..." plus more repetition "She appeared ... This led to her being asked to appear ... Among her other cover appearances ... Ratajkowski appeared ... She made ... She was a spokesperson..." This reads like a resume with too much repetition.
 * Third paragraph of the lead, the first sentence has three uses of "roles" in close order and two sentences starting "Her.."
 * I hope 2 roles is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Throughout the rest of the article - there is a severe overuse of the "She/Her to start sentences.
 * Addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of "early life" is just off in tone for an encyclopedia - it reads more like something I'd read in a women's magazine.
 * "As of March 30, 2016, two videos in which she appeared for the company—a featured Holiday 2012 video and a local Valentine's 2011 video—are among the five most popular videos on the company's YouTube channel." this is encyclopedic?
 * As with your questions regarding American GQ, I think what we have here is some sort of misunderstanding on the relevance of the topic. Ratajkowski became a breakout star in 2013-14. We are trying to show the things that helped her separate herself from the multitude of models. In 2011, she was unknown. Being in a popular video is part of the process of becoming a star. If we have evidence in the public domain that we can point to that shows how she began to become popular, we need to present it. As with the American GQ content below, this is not a matter of eliminating content, but rather a matter of you communicating to me how to better help the reader understand that this was one of her first popular appearances.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are lots of listings of way too many cover appearances, bit appearances in videos, etc. All this trivial detail makes the prose hard to read and makes it stilted and un-engaging.
 * This is a model. Magazine covers and videos are a large part of their craft. Your assessment of summarizing their craft as trivial is like saying that talking about how a bunch of basketball games are trivial in the biography of a basketball player, a bunch of elections are trivial in the biography of a politician or a bunch of horse races are trivial in an article about a horse. I think your interest level needs to be recalibrated for the subject at issue. Models have their picture taken. We are tasked with summarizing the important instances of them doing their craft based on what appears in RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * we are an encyclopedia, we summarize things when there is a lot of detail available. We don't list the stats from every game an NFL player plays, nor do we have to give exhaustive details on every cover appearance. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had been thinking about these edits, which I just undid. Models' success is based on their most notable work (like any other professions). Since there are no WP:FAs of people who are primarily notable for their modelling, it is hard to look at what counts and how to present it. Model cover appearances is one of the prominent things that they do. I had been tinkering with an alternate presentation at here. I am trying to get feedback at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion, but WP:FASHION may be inactive. This is not like mushrooms where everyone knows what makes an FA because we have dozens of them. Unfortunately, I don't edit much outside the Tuesday-Thursday window now and don't have time to trim much other content right now. I will take a look then at trimming much more.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "On June 24, 2014, Ratajkowski appeared topless on the cover and in a photograph spread in the July 2014 edition of American GQ.[87] She gave men dating advice in the online videos and cover story." This is just an example of the trivial coverage that's way too much detail.
 * , As I try to improve the article, I need to make sure I am hearing your correctly. Keep in mind that the subject is a model and GQ may be the most important cover that she has appeared on to date. (BTW, I have created a coverography mockup) This is a WP biography and we need to present the turning points of her career. So I think we definitely need to mention her first semi-major cover and possibly most important cover to date. Thus, I am fairly certain wiping out this content is not appropriate. Thus, I need to understand the problem with the current presentation. Do you not want to know the subject of the coverstory or are you objecting to the topless mention. I am guessing you may think that discussing the coverstory is unnecessary. So I have deleted that sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am looking at her coverography to date and guess that Cosmopolitan (Italy and US) and GQ (US and UK) are her most important covers. I am not sure which is most important.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
 * N.B. My understanding of modelling is that France, Italy, United States and United Kingdom covers are the most important. It seems to me that Vogue is the most important magazine cover. Other high level covers seem to include Elle, Glamour, and Marie Claire. The next level seems to include GQ, Vanity Fair, and Cosmopolitan. I am just speculating on all of this and WP:FASHION is semi-inactive. I am going to try to find a Fashion person who will comment on what is puffery and what is not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More puffery "Ratajkowski became the new face of Italian retailer Yamamay on August 15, 2014." - the company doesn't even rate an article - why do we describe it as "became the new face" - and what does that really mean in encylopedia terms?
 * Being the face of a company is a common form of publicity. I admit I had been pondering the Yamamay content for a few days. Thanks for prompting me to remove it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The fair use of the magazine cover fails any sort of justification for me. I can understand that the cover got her the role in the music video without having to see the magazine cover. In my opinion, it fails our fair use policies.
 * At this point it would be a WP:BLP violation to remove her topless image if the objection is based upon nudity concerns because my act of censoring her article would offend the BLP subject who is currently prominent in the media for speaking out against censoring her nudity. So as to be true to the BLP subject, I will choose to offend other editors rather than the BLP subject. So far two image reviewers have confirmed that the image passes WP:NFCC and its removal would offend the BLP subject. I will not show any support for censoring her nudity by removing the image unless it violates NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did NOT say a THING about nudity or the like. I said I believe it fails our fair use policies. Your reply did not address any of that - it replied to something I did not say. Show me where I said anything about it being a topless or nude shot. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did address your concern about NFCC. I stated that it has already passed NFCC in an image review by one editor in this FAC after passing an image review by two editors in the prior FAC. That specifically addresses your concern. Please reread my statement which is a statement that it has passed NFCC review and would be a BLP violation if removed. You stated a point that I responded to and gave a second reason for keeping it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think it passes our image policies, however. That is my opinion. The oppose is mainly based off the prose problems (which are throughout the whole article, the points above are just examples) but I do not agree that the image passes our image policies. And the idea that it is a BLP policy to not include it is so far-fetched as to be not worth dealing with. I do not agree with that interpretation either - so consider this my statement of that also. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You and I are both veterans at FAC. However, FAC has a specific policy that there are a limited set of people whose opinions matter regarding NFCC. I am not an image reviewer and (correct me if I am wrong, but) neither are you. Thus, neither of our opinions matter regarding whether an image meets NFCC. So we should probably just deal with the prose. I am not going to have time to dig into this today. I will get back to it by Tuesday.
 * Uh, there is no specific policy at FAC that only a limited number of people's opinions matter re. NFCC. Certainly there are reviewers more experienced in image policy than others, but the FAC criteria never mention specific groups of people. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm what the current role of the image reviewer is now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So I'm clear, Tony, since we were talking about policy above, do i take it that when you say "current" you mean re. FAC in general rather than re. this particular nom at this point? In any case, I'd use the term "review" instead of "reviewer", since it's about process and more than one person can comment on images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Well if the image review/reviewer process is different in this review than it is in any other FAC make me aware of that too. I have never been involved in a FAC, where the review was not determined by a reviewer. Even deferred to reviewers in FAC2 for this subject. I have always been given the feeling that there was no debating with a reviewer and that the reviewer has authority. In fact, I have never been involved in a FAC nomination where any editor felt his voice mattered against that of an image reviewer. I could point back at several past FACs if you like. Thus, I am wondering if the reviewer no longer is in charge of the image reviews and if there is a new or newly understood (to me) policy of a reviewer voice just being e pluribus unim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, hopefully we can tie this up now. There's been no change to how FAC operates re. image review. Certainly most noms only involve one image reviewer but there's nothing to stop anyone else commenting on images, and an experienced image reviewer's comments can be subject to discussion the same as any experienced reviewers' comments (I've done so myself as a nominator). Ultimately it's up to the FAC coords to judge consensus for promotion of an article, and that involves determining how much weight to give to each reviewers' comments when there's a difference of opinion. As I haven't gone through all comments in this nom, I'm not here (as yet) to weigh things up but only to correct any misconceptions about the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , so you are saying that there have been previous FAC nominations where an image reviewers opinion was disregarded or overruled?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am still trying to confirm that the rules are not suddenly changing. Can you confirm that there have been previous FAC nominations where an image reviewers opinion was disregarded or overruled?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony, this discussion has gone on long enough -- pls re-read my previous comment "There's been no change to how FAC operates". As for precedents, I don't need to trawl through previous nominations because every FAC, every support or oppose, is judged on its merits. Time to move on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dig deeper - the article is filled with trivial details that aren't encyclopedic and make it seem like a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article. And the prose is so stuffed with details that it is difficult to read and very stilted. It needs a complete rewrite that does NOT take place at FAC.
 * Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review

 * What makes Fashion Model Database a reliable source for a BLP?
 * It seems that they have a team of editors. RS is all about having an expert contributors and an editorial process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the types of topics sourced to FMD, the reliability of the source need not be as high as for other types of controversial facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * this is a BLP which requires high quality sources, and it's also at FAC, which also requires more than just reliable sources but high quality ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes The World's Best Ever Blog a reliable source for a BLP? (Note at the bottom where it says "The World's Best Ever: Design, Fashion, Art, Music, Photography, Lifestyle, Entertainment 2016 | the worlds best ever. all rights reserved. powered by word press." WordPress is a blogging site.
 * Content removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes Coed a reliable source? I could NOT get to their "about us" page because they kept scrolling my browser with more "stories" that read like gossip rags.
 * here is their about page, which substantiates an editorial process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can believe they've got an editorial process, I just don't see any sign that process is interested in avoiding gossip in the interest of facts. In that way it's like the Daily Mail. It and the National Enquirer each have an editorial process as such, in the sense that they have editors. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have eliminated both uses of coed, but one was jointly sourced with Daily Mail. I have replaced this by joint sourcing with The Sun and Models.com.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Sun is hardly better, also a tabloid. Is that sentence (worked with Tony Kelly?) really so crucial to this biography? Surely she's worked with many photographers, and surely some better sources can be found for at least some of them if you just want to namedrop. Is Tony Kelly somehow the single most important glamour photographer in the world, or in her career? --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, she has worked with 5 photographers who have articles on WP. So I guess he is one of the top 5 photographers she has worked with in her career. The Sun is the closest thing we have to the fact that she was the cover for that edition's anniversary. Models.com tells us she shot with Kelly. I will shorten the content further to get rid of The Sun.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes Fashionista a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
 * Harper's Bazaar cites them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Daily Mail is not a good source for a BLP - why should you use it rather than something more reliable?
 * I am going to need 48 hours to look at all of the uses of Daily Mail. In past FACs, for specific facts, less reliable sources have been accepted when they were the only alternative. I am not sure how many of the current uses are necessary and can not be replaced by other sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed Daily Mail use from about 10 to 1 ref. It seems to be the only source describing her role with Tony Duran, who is one of 5 photographers she has worked with who has a WP article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. The Irish Independent article does the same. (In fact, it seems to use almost the same words; if it were a Wikipedia article I would accuse it of plagiarism.) --GRuban (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Swapped. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes MovieWeb a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
 * here is the about page, which seems satisfactory to me for a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes deadline.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
 * See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes Paste.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
 * See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes Uproxx a high quality reliable source for a BLP? I again note that I cannot get to the "about us" section because it keeps scrolling more and more gossipy "news" stories at me.
 * here is the about page, which supports it as a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes models.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
 * See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for evaluating the sources. I will respond to these on Monday or Tuesday. This will help me with content considerations in the coming days. Can you confirm whether this is a full source review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with most (and mentioned Coed and Daily Mail myself, before my comment got derailed, cough), but there are exceptions:
 * Deadline.com is a respected film industry website, that has been considered reliable on the Reliable sources noticeboard multiple times.. Here it is being used as a source for USA Today, Playbill , Philadelphia Inquirer, , , Akron Beacon Journal , Fox News ...
 * Paste.com is not being used. Paste (magazine) is used, and is a 14 year old magazine, originally in print, which has received a number of awards from other reliable sources, which tends to point to it also being one.
 * Models.com seems to be a respected source for modeling, for example a brief search shows TeenVogue,Fashion Times, Sports Illustrated, Harper's Bazaar each devoting an article to various winners of its contests, Bustle calling it a "massive honor" and Orange County Register using it as a source alongside with the Centers for Disease Control. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fashion model database is again, not the right name. Fashion Model Directory is described in our article about it, and is used by other reliable sources for numerical, statistical, and similarly database-style information on models: Los Angeles Times, Fashion Times, International Business Times, International Business Times, New Statesman, aktuálně.cz, Terra Moda (and other non-English sources). Also, of course, this scientific study. --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , would you consider the sources again.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony - pinging me in multiple places isn't going to improve my ability to get to this any faster. (Nor is it going to make my mood any better when I do find the time). I've seen this - I will get to it when I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Most of my free time is now Tues-Thurs. So I was hoping to be able to respond to any concerns you might have fairly promptly. If there are extensive further issues, I won't be able to respond until Tuesday now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.