Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Emily Ratajkowski edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to determine the possibility of getting a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in June of 2016. I want to see if this has WP:FA potential.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below, I also need as much editorial guidance as possible in pursuit of FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt edit

(having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. That is a laudable goal, because it's challenging due to the fact that there might be a lot more coverage in secondary sources of further developments in this person's career between now and then.
  3. I would still strongly suggest copy edit from WP:GOCE and perhaps from people you can get who are previously uninvolved and have never even seen this article before as additional copy editors.
  4. Section: Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski#Andy_Hardy_vs._Andy_Fitzgerald, this needs to be definitively addressed before FAC.
  5. It would certainly be quite nice before FAC to obtain a free-use licensed image of the subject via the commons:Commons:OTRS process, through attempting to contact her representatives/agents.
  6. External video -- I see three (3) External video boxes in main article body text, with a total of six (6) external links. Best to move these to External links sect, or at least trim them down to one box with maybe three (3) total links tops in main body text, otherwise starts to look a bit unencyclopedic.
  7. Overly large quote box in sect Music video performances -- they hate those at FAC, I'd strongly recommend getting rid of the entire quote box.
  8. And for that matter, I'd recommend getting rid of all quotes or as many quotes as possible and paraphrase instead.
  9. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Duly noted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have just taken this to GA and DYK and intend to keep it up to date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am sort of here for a copy edit. I can tag this for WP:GOCE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Emily_Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The article seems stable. I am willing to revisit this when the movie goes to DVD and I can get clarification via Netflix.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have been in contact with both Ford Models and treats! to no avail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is there precedent at FAC regarding limitations on use of the external links template? I am not sure it is an improvement to move the links away from the text that discusses them or reduce the number of links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed half of the ELs from the prose section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think there should be one quotebox on this issue. Would a smaller one be any better? What about this quote: "I think there's different kinds of nudity, and there's different kinds of sexiness, and obviously it's hard to distinguish those things. I think that the video was tasteful, beautiful, and there's nothing offensive about it."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I am not going to get rid of all quotes. I may consider trimming down any that seem more pointless than others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seems redundant with #1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt, I was hoping you might have particular text issues that would require editorial response. I guess I misstated my intention with this PR. I also need as much editorial guidance as possible in pursuit of FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, TonyTheTiger, but I'm a bit tired out after leaving comments at ten (10) peer reviews and also successfully clearing out the entire backlog of peer reviews at the moment. :) My above comments are simply suggestions and recommendations based on my own experiences at WP:FAC, of things that I think will help the article have an easier time at WP:FAC and gain WP:FA quality. — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt in 2 weeks if no one else has commented on it, I may ask you to take a look at the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan! You could also post to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a neutrally worded message asking for copy editors from previously uninvolved editors. Can't hurt, worth a try. — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have left notices at WT:BIOG, WT:ACTOR and WT:FASHION.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, you are officially off the hook. This is one of, if not, the most widely-discussed PRs I have ever been involved in. 4 people with commentary and advice is very rare for a PR, especially in 2014 as ir has waned. I appreciate all the comments that I am receiving. The article is improving.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sounds good, you're most welcome, and I'm glad it worked out Tony! — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Lead
  • Try to get an image for her infobox if possible
  • "British-born American"..... English-born, let's be more specific since she was born in London
  • Much of the detail on "Blurred Lines" charting belongs on the song article, not here. Instead, include detail on Ratajkowski's role or at least focus more on the video itself.
    • The current prior content is "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom as well as the longest running Billboard Hot 100 number one song of the decade to date in the United States." What should account for the success in the following subsequent phrase "Following the success and controversy of 'Blurred Lines', she became a high profile sex symbol..."? At most I could see removing the phrase "including Canada and the United Kingdom"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have shortened to "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries as well as the longest running Billboard Hot 100 number one song of the decade to date in the United States." If another song remains number one for 13 consecutive weeks, I will remove the latter half of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The commercial performance of the song isn't needed for this article at all. Since Ratajkowski was only in the video, this article should focus more on that than the song's commercial aspects. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recurring role on iCarly and, subsequent roles" has a stray comma that should be removed
Early life
  • Rather than give ages at the time of Ratajkowski's birth, it would be better to give birth years or approximations for when her parents were born
  • Mentioning her grandfather's religious affiliation isn't necessary, just say he was a Polish immigrant
    • I don't wish to remove facts that provide information to the reader. Being a Polish Jew is more precise description than being Polish. There is no reason to make the article less precise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that you don't need to go into much detail about people outside of the immediate family (parents, siblings, and children) of a subject, particularly when such family doesn't have separate articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has been my experience in creating biographies that WP include all ancestral information available in secondary sources. If a person is notable enough that their grandparents are mentioned in secondary sources that information is relayed to the reader. I have never been told to remove any such information in any biography that I have created.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to mention the "Polish Israeli" bit when it is already mentioned that she has Polish, Irish, and German heritage.
    • Again no reason to make the article less precise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it's just redundant to give two statements on one's background. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you are missing the point. First we say all the various ancestral components that we are able to identify, including Polish Jew. Later, we say what she considers herself: Polish Israeli, which is a different thing and additional information to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact" is not very encyclopedic, so I'd remove this bit..... Is it even needed to mention she spent her summers in Ireland?
  • "Ratajkowski was quite comfortable with the naked body due to her background"..... awkward phrasing
  • "she frequented nude beaches"..... frequently visited
Career
  • There should be quotes on what critics said of Ratajkowski's acting. The commentary on videos and her physique are nice to have, but those alone aren't enough.
    • The vast majority of critics did not comment on her role. I have included what I could find.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily for "Blurred Lines", I was also suggesting to include what they said of her in other roles Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Her only notable acting role has been in Gone Girl. I assumed you were requesting criticism of that acting. What roles were you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video EL's aren't really needed here
    • Gone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mostly, there's still four to remove Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not going to remove the one from the EL section of the article. The three in the prose section are at issue, but I don't necessarily think wiping them out of the article helps the reader. I might consider moving another one to the EL section, but I can't see removing them all completely.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After getting a lot of local youth acting experience"..... gaining local youth acting experience
  • "The earlier film roles were trivial enough"..... that phrasing isn't very encyclopedic
  • "Before she became well-known"..... famous
  • "As of 12 July 2014"..... you previously use month-day-year format, be consistent here
  • "As a curvaceous 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model"..... "curvaceous" is very POV and I'm not convinced it's the most encyclopedic term
    • We are a tertiary source responsible for summarizing and rephrasing secondary sources. This is from a secondary source paragrarph on the following topic (and I quote): "Emily sounds off on the curves that put her in a different class from runway models".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In other words, remove "curvaceous"- it isn't needed Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I was saying curvaceous in a way that was WP:OR, I would remove it. But, I am using it to relay to the reader content about the topic of a woman with curves that are the central point of discussion. When a woman's curves are the central point of discussion in a secondary source, describing her as curvaceous in WP is not OR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, I'd try to get a free image of Ratajkowski.
  • In the image's caption, "large breasts" would be better than "big breasts"
  • "a statement about our society not having advanced as far as it should on all fronts"..... this is absolutely not a neutral statement
  • "being controversial for the nudity of its video"..... creating controversy
  • "In a separate interview for Complex, she said" → "Ratajkowski also told Complex"
  • "Additionally she said"..... needs a comma after "additionally"
  • "extensive critiquing"..... criticism
  • The charting detail on "Blurred Lines" again should be in the song's article rather than here. The video should be the focus instead.
    • First, the charting detail is at Blurred_Lines#Charts. This is a very concise summary of the most important elements of that detail to provide context. I feel you would likely agree that it means one the to say she was in a music video and another to say she was in a music video that was the number one song of the year in several countries.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. Charts don't need to be mentioned at all in this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • So do you disagree that it means one the to say she was in a music video and another to say she was in a music video that was the number one song of the year in several countries.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove "controversial" from "her controversial performance" for neutrality sake
Personal life
  • The information on breast surgery rumors and Karaoke are trivial, and I'm concerned with the tone of "was not really noticed". Since this section is rather short and would be even more so without the fluff, I'm thinking scrap this section altogether and integrate her residence and relationship with Andrew Dryden into the "career" section along with "early life" into a "life and career" section.
    • You might be surprised how common it is for female biographies to include content refuting breast augmentation claims.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those articles probably shouldn't include it either. It's fluff, and so is the Karaoke bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Filmography
  • Per WP:CRYSTAL, remove We Are Your Friends until it enters production AND has a release date
    • They have finished shooting so I think this satisfies WP:CRYSTAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though the year isn't confirmed yet. I'd wait until that information is known. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see anything about a year being necessary. I see "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I think once filming has been completed on a major motion picture, that film is nearly certain to be distributed in some form in the future. Even if it goes Direct-to-video, it remains notable in the WP sense because of its stars.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References

There's my input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNUGGUMS Thanks. That is what I need. I will probably start with the footnotes since doing the other things first will make it hard to see what you are talking about because the order may change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kiyoweap edit

Don't regularly review, but I am checking into how it is being conducted, and posting my two cents' worth.

/*Early life*/
  • In this section, the last paragraph seems abrupt. This is on early life, but the "Ratajkowski appreciates the female form.." timewarps to comment now as grownup. So perhaps insert a transitional clause that reads something like "Exposure to nudity during her formative years would prepare her.... blahblahblah.. for her eventual career appearances au naturel before the camera.." I recommend bluntly saying "nudity" at the beginning, because in the original wording, I myself required a double-take to realize "appreciates the female form" was code for "nudity". I used "exposure" here, but you don't want to use the same word thrice, so your word choice. Alternatively you might retool the last sentence "..she is comfortable" as the introductory sentence.
  • To comform with the spelling "Majorca" here, I would change spelling of Mallorca earlier.
  • Helmut Newton is only a vaguely famous sounding name to me, so instead of "his books" (suggesting author) maybe replace with "the photography of".

  Done This fix does it for me, regarding smooth transitioning from early life topic to current comment. For further word tweaks, I will minor edit and comment in edit summary.--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/*Career*/
  • Although it might be sort of a given that fledgling models are automatically budding starlets also, it breaks flow for me when you switch from one to the other and back without some guiding logic. The obvious logic would be chronological, but this is not followed, because iCarly (2009) is followed by signing with Ford Agency (2005?) for example.
  • As another case of point, In her schoolgirl years, she was typecast for.. "bitchy girl" seems to be repeat of the same bad adolescent auditioning experience as "typically put forth for Nickelodeon, Disney mean girls, or cheerleaders", only that in the interim you are meandering to talk about modeling again.
  • So, I think if you want to employ both "bitchy girl" (NY Times) and "Disney mean girls" (VF), one possibility would be to embed the first one in a "section lede" tersely summarizing the rest of the section. Though I can't point to a MOS page on this.
  • The "she eschewed many auditions .. reads as if she's blowing off auditions, to me. Rough suggetion: "Although her modeling agency did send[?] her to auditions for acting roles during this period.. it [made her less than enthused about acting], etc." Obviously you have to use proper words like "disenchanted". This also addresses the subject-less "put forth" getting slapped with a {{by whom}} tag, though you might not agree "agency" as acting subject can be safely assumed here.
  • As to "eschew auditions", there was a bit of something like that later on in her career: "offered roles.. but her manager, Evan Hainey .. is grooming her for something bigger" (NY Times).
  • "Disney mean girls" is too colloquial to be encyclopedic, so either make it direct quote, or paraphrase it better as 'mean girl roles for Disney studio', etc.
  • You have After her breakout with Duran here, and it is true that NY Times article calls this photoshoot her "breakout moment". But your /*Breakout*/ section seems to say it was her video that was her "breakout role". This may be overpicky, but my sense is that the article should select one single gig that gives her name recognition as "THE breakout moment", and qualify or reword the other ones as "minor breakout", or "became a fashion model icon of sorts", or something more suave.
  Done - I think you have done nicely here. The article now adroitly juggles topic between the modeling to acting, with bridging phrasing in-between, and that must have taken a bit of doing. Sticking to chronology now really helps information sink in more easily, IMO. The{{by whom}} has been finessed around nicely too.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
/*Break out*/
  • For section name, I checked supermodel articles elsewhere, and renaming as /*Rise to fame as model*/ or /*2013–2014: Modeling career */ might be a suggestion.
  • The "glossiesography" here of magazine appearances may be bit overly comprehensive. Probably you need no reminding, but the list wont be allowed to mushroom, and by the time 2016 comes around will have to be culled, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even right now, her supporting actress role Gone Girl material lies buried within. One cheat way to insert excessive detail that I use is to sneak it in explanatory notes ({{efn}} and {{notelist}}) but I'm not sure how well the usual FA reviews tolerate this.
    • Kiyoweap, I am not quite sure how to address this issue. Can you tell me what you think should be in the article regarding magazine appearances? I think at least the GQ and Cosmo covers should be mentioned. I have eliminated a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Done The "Rise to fame" section name sounds more standard-use to me. As long as you're aware of the stepping-stone breakout here, and bigger one there. On the lengthy glossiesography, I didn't say specifically what to cull, so whatever you decide to reject is fine with me, and if you say her first Cosmo and GQ covers are major milestones in her career at this point, I'll buy that too.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
/*Music video performances*/
  • I think whole section should revolve around "Blurred Lines", so recommend structuring sentences so "Blurred Lines" is always mentioned first. Example: "'Blurred Lines' was the blah video that blah blah famous. Prior to this, she had been shot in two other videos, although one of these did not see its release until after 'Blurred'".
    • The section is probably 3/4ths "Blurred Lines" already. I don't think it would be correct to omit the other to videos from this article/section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next paragraph, "For 'Blurred Lines'.. decision to cast Ratajkowski in the music video came from.." sort of thing
  • Adam Levine might be identified as member of Maroon 5 here, and "barechested" instead of "topless", him being a guy?--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that if you keep reading, it gradually becomes clear the section is 3/4ths about "Blurred lines". But my thought was your description of how "Love Somebody" got taped before but was released after "Blurred" got a bit mired in detail, affecting readability as well as rhythm and speed in reaching the topic of the "Blurred" video. So, maybe you might keep the beginning very short, like: "Before 'Blurred Lines', Ratajkowki had been cast in two other music videos, 'Fast Car' by Taio Cruz (2012),[32] and Maroon 5's 'Love Somebody' (2013),[1] though the latter was not released until after 'Blurred'...", and maybe tuck away smaller details (e.g. pinpointing the taping date of "Love Somebody" to January) in an Explanatory note ({{efn}}), or leaving that detail to the wikilinked articles.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to address this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kiyoweap, did you notice what I did?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Done OK, since you ping'd me I re-read the versions, and I do believe with the new version the information sinks in a lot more smoothly for me.
The sentence "Both "Love Somebody" and "Blurred Lines" were produced in 2013." has a bit of a tack-on feel to it, placed as an afterthought to patch the omission of the release year earlier. You could've just as well inserted "2013" in the first sentence thus:"Pharrell Williams' 2013 'Blurred Lines' video", and that wouldn't be so cluttering. But up to you.
Possible syntax fix: "she interpreted the video to be about ", and a typo:"perfomrance" is there.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All in all a nicely written and laid out article, and I wish you good luck with obtaining a photo for placement at the top of the page for promoting it to an FA article.

--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sigeng edit

  • Photos
    • Here are two photos of her with Creative Commons licenses on Flickr[1]. One appears to be copied from her instagram (not usable) but the other might be usable.
    • It would probably also be fair use to pull a still photo from Blurred Lines (maybe the "red car" shot from the PG version) single it's become iconic/memetic - a fact that can also support its use.
      • I doubt that the iconic nature of that role is sufficient to pass WP:NFCC. The debate regarding the treats! image was so rigorous that I don't want to put that one at risk by adding another borderline image. I have had iconic images taken out of bios before. E.g., I have not been allowed to include a FU image at Demi_Moore#Vanity_Fair_controversy. She is young and we expect many PD images of her to surface over time. We should probably wait for one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. I might be convinced to try a screenprint of a scene, if you could convince me that any one scene in the video is iconic in the sense that the media consistently portrays one scene as representative of the video. Then, I could make the argument that this one scene is the one that the media says is iconic. Note that the one FU that has survived is considered to be the one single photograph of her that all media sources point to as propelling her career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The treats! magazine cover photo should be moved up closer to the text "March 2012 cover of treats!", especially if other photos are introduced
  • The "aside" quotation needs copyediting, and an explanation such as "–Emily Ratajkowski on her participation in Blurred Lines". I did a bit.
  • I rephrased a little around "bitchy girl". I've tried to capture more of what was meant rather than what was said in the sources.
  • While she is a sex symbol, the article text occasionally borders on titillation or needlessly sexualizing and objectifying her.
    • "various states of dress" - makes it sound like she was found in a compromising situation. I changed that.
    • "In her schoolgirl years": "adolescent years" will do. I fixed that.
    • "curvaceous" and "ample": not ideal (probably best to quote a source's description of her)
      • I have changed from "curvaceous 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model" (not in quotes in the article) to 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models" with the latter part in quotes. I still sort of think a summary rather than a quote might be better. How about uncharacteristically curvaceous, atypically curvaceous, abnormally curvaceous, or something similar?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Christina Hendricks uses quotes for all opinions on her figure (other articles like Kate Upton omit the discussion of body altogether). I think "curves", "curvy" and "curvaceous" are all supportable abbreviations of that quotation. The key is that we're quoting an opinion rather than asserting it in the article text. -Sigeng (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive1&oldid=1089069393"