Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Ratajkowski

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Not even close to 5x expansion (3.2x); can be renominated if it is listed as a GA.

DYK toolbox

Emily Ratajkowski edit

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Technically, Emily Ratajkowski has only been expanded from 3216 to 10291 which is only a 3.2 x expansion. However, I have dug up lots of non-prose content that really augments the readers understanding. I have seen lots of talk page discussions about changing the expansion requirements. Is it possible to accept this based on over 6.7KB of new content plus non-prose improvements? If not can someone review this at GA where it is a current nominee.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I am just curious what the sentiment is regarding this candidate given all the discussion about changing the criteria.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


  • I think this has to be a no; as you say, it is not even close to the required 5x expansion. There is also repetition throughout which when removed will reduce the size further. You can bring it back if it gets GA. Belle (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At least her time spent in Ireland as a child, signing up to Ford, and the controversy around the video. There's also what I would consider tangential material as, for example, in the details of Blurred Lines charting performance. Belle (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the stated redundancies. It remains at 10362 characters of readable prose up from 3216 (3.222x).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How is the charting performance tangential? You can say she was in a controversial song or the most popular song in the world, which was also controversial. These are two different things.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You can simply say she was in the video for the most popular song in the world ("number 1 song of the year in 2013 music charts in many countries"); no need to dedicate a paragraph to that song's charting performance including the dates during which it was number one and which song it displaced and that song's charting performance; that information is not pertinent to her article. Belle (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have shortened the charting detail from 543 characters to 431 characters. I don't think I can retain the encyclopedic content with further reductions, but will consider your feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think you'd lose much by replacing the Black Eyed Peas bit with "since 2009", but I'd have the article reduced to half the size if you let me at it with scissors. Anyway, I feel like I've fallen for the long con here and am slowly being reeled into a GA review (which I'm really not qualified for, having barely enough of an attention span to get me through DYK). Let's close this down and have another go when it's passed GA. Belle (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Emily_Ratajkowski&oldid=619081034"