Jump to content

Talk:Emily Ratajkowski: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1) (Feminist)
Line 172: Line 172:


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

== "Her claim to being a feminist has been both supported and disputed." ==

This sentence in the lede is confusingly worded. It sounds like it's either stating that there is disagreement on whether or not she claims to be a feminist, or that she claims to be a feminist, but there is contention over whether she is actually a feminist. Either way it seems like a strange thing to put in a lede, so if there's no disagreement I'm going to remove it. [[User:Zeldafanjtl|Zeldafanjtl]] ([[User talk:Zeldafanjtl|talk]]) 21:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:14, 8 April 2018

Good articleEmily Ratajkowski has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2010Proposed deletionSpeedily kept
October 7, 2014Good article nomineeListed
November 25, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
February 11, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
June 18, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
March 14, 2016Peer reviewNot reviewed
April 11, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 17, 2024Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
April 26, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 25, 2024Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
July 6, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 24, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model Emily Ratajkowski is featured in the music video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of 2013 in several countries?
Current status: Good article

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Baffle gab1978, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19 December 2014.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 April, 2016.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Jonesey95, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 May, 2016.

Critics "noted" is POV

Why does the article say critics "noted" things? I feel this endorses their POV. See also WP:SAY Siuenti (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti, I have never heard WP:SAY. I am going to need some time to consider the use of note in the article. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5, which could use some commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Siuenti, I have addressed 6 of the 7 instances of noted. I feel the other one is best left alone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think that is an improvement. Siuenti (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

The start of this section, dealing with relationships, looks like the sort of thing that would be front page on one of those gossip mags I see in checkouts. Is it of vital encyclopedic importance we include this information? The sources don't look to be particularly great and skirt far too close to WP:BLPSOURCES for my liking. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ritchie333, You are not being very direct. That is a four paragraph section. I am going to assume that you are opposing only the first paragraph which is about her relationships since that is what the edit history suggests you are really having problems with. I find it quite unusual to remove relationship content from a personal life section. That is one of the first things a reader would probably look to find in such a section. As she becomes more prominent, her relationships will appear in more reliable/prominent sources. However, you can see that we have tried to draw the line on relationships in the section above "Summary of content that we can not yet source", where we know of a longterm relationship that we are unable to adequately source. Surely there are some celebrities that have had a few marriages and one might eliminate non-marriages from the encyclopedic content, but in this case there is no such other perspective to diminish long term dating relationships. Many other celebrities include significant non-marriage relationships.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Ritchie333, we're at 113k here. Did you ever read WP:FART? Kelapstick got it going. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Emily Ratajkowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is she not listed as models of Catholic descent?

I sense some Wiki bigotry as every other aspect of her is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4101:4167:40AE:1F73:64E6:AD1 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this was an attempt at some kind of sarcasm. If not, one very good reason is that there is no Category:Models of Catholic descent. Nor does the creation of one seem appropriate, since the religious "descent" (whatever that is) of a model is not a defining characteristic. General Ization Talk 01:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Ratajkowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Ratajkowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Her claim to being a feminist has been both supported and disputed."

This sentence in the lede is confusingly worded. It sounds like it's either stating that there is disagreement on whether or not she claims to be a feminist, or that she claims to be a feminist, but there is contention over whether she is actually a feminist. Either way it seems like a strange thing to put in a lede, so if there's no disagreement I'm going to remove it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]