Talk:Emily Ratajkowski: Difference between revisions
Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1) (Feminist) |
Zeldafanjtl (talk | contribs) |
||
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
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emily Ratajkowski article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thank you, I think that is an improvement. Siuenti (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Drmies, since when do we count length based on the code. The article is under 25k in readable prose, which is not considered long by any stretch. However, keep up the good work on minimizing my excess coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tony I measure size in any way I can. I consider this article to be ridiculously long. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Both measures exist, but Wikipedia:Article size seems to focus on readable prose with 30-50KB of readable prose seeming to be a normal length for a broad topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- You have every possible fact of her life in there. And we're still talking about someone who was in a music video, and had a few bit parts. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Both measures exist, but Wikipedia:Article size seems to focus on readable prose with 30-50KB of readable prose seeming to be a normal length for a broad topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tony I measure size in any way I can. I consider this article to be ridiculously long. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, since when do we count length based on the code. The article is under 25k in readable prose, which is not considered long by any stretch. However, keep up the good work on minimizing my excess coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160524083958/http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/emily-ratajkowski-on-sex-success-and-selfies-with-kim-kardashian-a3249511.html to http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/emily-ratajkowski-on-sex-success-and-selfies-with-kim-kardashian-a3249511.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822202018/http://www.complex.com/music/2013/07/blurred-lines-girl-emily-ratajkowski to http://www.complex.com/music/2013/07/blurred-lines-girl-emily-ratajkowski
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630152015/http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/david-fincher-gone-girl-movie-review/ to http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/david-fincher-gone-girl-movie-review/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805105856/http://www.wmagazine.com/people/best-dressed/2015/12/emily-ratajkowski-best-dressed-2015/ to http://www.wmagazine.com/people/best-dressed/2015/12/emily-ratajkowski-best-dressed-2015/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904022015/http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/videos/rita-ora-and-emily-ratajkowski-present-the-award-for-artist-to-watch/1233946/ to http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/videos/rita-ora-and-emily-ratajkowski-present-the-award-for-artist-to-watch/1233946/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313011809/http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/27/emily-ratajkowskis-hottest-instagram-pictures-slideshow/ to http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/27/emily-ratajkowskis-hottest-instagram-pictures-slideshow/
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)
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)
- 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)
External links modified
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170324124445/http://chicagoist.com/2016/09/26/joe_swanbergs_easy_offers_more_than.php to http://chicagoist.com/2016/09/26/joe_swanbergs_easy_offers_more_than.php
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)
External links modified
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:
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.republic-online.com/lifestyles/entertainment/emily-ratajkowski-wants-strong-roles/article_785b9450-1e69-5260-b4d2-d72d7b41e9bb.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831040511/http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/moviemom/2015/08/we-are-your-friends.html to http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/moviemom/2015/08/we-are-your-friends.html
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)
"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)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Media and drama good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Pages with redundant living parameter
- GA-Class fashion articles
- Low-importance fashion articles
- GA-Class London-related articles
- Mid-importance London-related articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles