1059:— The article reads more like a fansite or a magazine article than an encyclopedia article, partly due to excessive detail, but also due to the way in which Ratajkowski is portrayed. Far too much attention is placed on her ideas on feminism – while they certainly need to be mentioned, the article doesn't need to catalogue every single time she's stated something on this topic. Undue weight is being placed on this topic — Ratajkowski is primarily notable for being a model and an actor, not for her social activism/political views.
2193:. I am unsure if and when the rules changed, but it use to be the case that only unsuccessful nominations had to wait 2 weeks. The prior nomination was withdrawn with more supports than opposes. Is an open GOCE something that counts against a nomination? Now that GOCE has their backlog under control, it is actually very likely that a GOCE review could occur before a full FAC run. I will attempt to further address the open opposition.--
1816:— Repetition in several paragraphs, and confusing, non-encyclopedic sentences like "Her role as Vincent Chase's (played by Adrian Grenier) visually appealing love interest is described in a myriad of sexist ways in the press, with several mentions of her as the object of multiple affections"; "Other critics note in passing that Ratajkowski was among the key members of the solid supporting cast"; "her telegenic appearance".
2310:
around this area of
Knowledge (XXG) long enough to know that FAC is not the place where we pull articles up to standard. They are required to be fully prepared before nomination. I'm closing this now—further nominations require a two-week waiting period and I would expect to see deep work done to address concerns about sourcing and prose outlined by Ealdgyth, SlimVirgin, TrueHeartSusie3, and others. --
1442:"As of March 30, 2016, two videos in which Ratajkowski 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." — The videos being popular doesn't necessarily mean that they're popular due to Ratajkowski's appearance; using the Fredericks of Hollywood account as your source for this seems like OR.
1402:), so that we know what this whole controversy is about in the first place; b.) then represent disagreeing views, the majority of which in this article are Ratajkowski's; c.) however, you should synthesize these, since three paras is just too long in a bio article. Nowhere in this did I say that you shouldn't discuss both sides — on the contrary, what I'm saying is that you need to be less biased.
1596:"but some note that her small role as a "duplicitous and manipulative former student" is critical to the film" — Grantland is not a very notable film review website; the Salon review does not seem to state this. In general, it seems like reviews from minor publications were cherrypicked to make Ratajkowski's minor supporting role in the film appear more notable.
538:(who has had an even longer career), just to give two examples. When reading the article, it often seems like what's being said could've been expressed in a lot fewer words, and that the editors have been somewhat wary of synthesizing. For example, you don't need to quote 11 different critics when writing about the reception of her performance in
2081:, I am a bit puzzled by your request for more neutrality. This is Ratajkowski's bio. I believe that the article has presented both sides of any controversy with equal time (where appropriate) and then presented Ratajkowski's view in an encyclopedic manner. Do you think that this is the wrong thing to do? Where have I failed to do this?--
750:
about
Academy Award winning actors and actresses will have different content than those of less accomplished actors who get press for other reasons. Keep in mind that part of the length is due to the fact that we are accounting for two careers for Ratajkowski who is both an actress and a model. This article has had a recent copyedit by
2118:
ready for FAC. If you treat people who give you feedback the way you have done so far (see the comments Laser Brain was referring to; your bizarre insistence that I'm trying to erase the disagreeing views on the "BL" controversy; your being 'outraged' at TT), then don't be surprised if people don't want to interact with you.
1142:
paragraphs (!) of quotes from the video's director and
Ratajkowski, essentially disagreeing with the criticism over and over again. So not only is there way too much detail about the video and the controversy, but it also seems like the controversy is presented in a way that is heavily biased towards Ratajkowski's opinion.
2038:, Since you are on THS' side and I don't understand what that is, maybe you can help me. Undue weight is as vague as the bias. I have attempted to present both sides of controversies with equal time and then Ratajkowski's view. Is there undue weight on either side of the controversies or on Ratajkowski's view?--
1537:
Pointing to the popularity of the videos actually helps the reader find them on the FoH channel. Obviously, the reader who wants to research the popular videos will go to the FoH YT channel and look for the popular videos. If we just say she was in some FoH videos, the reader may not even be able to
1115:
I'm definitely not saying that you should delete the discussion on her feminism. However, the majority of the discussion should be contained within the "Advocacy" section, and be synthesized. Currently, you simply quote her a lot, even though it seems that she has mainly spoken about how women should
1303:
should remove the euphemisms (i.e. state that some people allege it promotes rape in the first place) and that 3 paragraphs of
Ratajkowski saying she disagrees is excessive. You yourself admit that your strengths don't lie in copyediting, so then you should probably take heed of others' suggestions.
917:
Even if I was wrong about the prose word count, it's still far too long for someone with as short a career. I'm very confused about your concern on reducing inline citations — verifiability is extremely important for a WP article, I'm definitely not suggesting you should cut on those. What I mean is
838:
I remain convinced that there is excessive detail around the topic of the video but I am unable to attempt another edit at this time. Yes, her video appearance is probably 90% of the reason behind her notoriety, but the article is about her NOT the video.I suggested that the table of magazine covers
2225:
Any archived nomination is supposed to wait two weeks, whether or not it's withdrawn. That's been the case for quite some time. Nominations are expected to be fully prepared, so yes, an article with an open GOCE request strikes me as admittedly unprepared. The numbers of supports and opposes aren't
2117:
Tony, first of all, the examples I listed are just examples, not an exhaustive list of every detail that should be corrected in the article. If you don't see how the article contains excessive detail and essentially seems like a puff piece, then I'm not sure I can help you, and you're certainly not
1504:
There is not much in the press about
Ratajkowski's Fredericks of Hollywood career because it predates her notability. Basically, all we can say is that she was in some videos and the they were popular in comparison to other FoH videos. I am just reporting what little there is to say. The reader can
1153:
The reduction to mostly
Ratajkowski's opinions came during the recent copyedit. Other opinions were in the article a week ago, but apparently, a full discourse on the controversies is not considered standard fare in this BLP. Obviously, you are someone who believes the song promotes rape. I am sure
1141:
When you discuss the "Blurred Lines" controversy, only euphemisms ("a man's freedom to force himself on women"; "degradation of women") are used to describe the criticism towards it, namely that the video and the lyrics of the song promote rape/rape culture. These two mentions are followed by three
2163:
At this point I am inclined to close this nomination shortly. First, it was opened a week after the last nomination was archived without leave from coordinators, in contravention of our guidelines. Second, with ongoing unresolved issues carrying over from the last FAC, open opposition, and an open
1972:
Again, you need to summarize. In general, my review can be summarized thus: a.) summarize and cut excessive detail; b.) be more neutral both in language and content. Since the article needs an overhaul, it's not ready for FA. I suggest you open a peer review, and allow some experienced editors who
1935:
I have one possible thought on bias. It is my opinion that with a controversy, we should present both sides with equal time and state
Ratajkowski's opinion afterwards. However, critical commentary is different. If it is largely positive or negative we are suppose to present a summary that reflects
1873:
It needs a lot more copyediting, but I'm not sure if GOCE can help you since I'm under the impression that they mostly focus on correcting grammatical errors etc. minor issues, but can't edit content, so when they encounter non-encyclopedic language, repetition or sentences that don't make sense,
1746:
Is that just your opinion though? The principal cast of the show seem to have the starring roles, and you've written that she doesn't actually have a lot of screen time. It seems to me like her cameo is notable, but she is definitely not a co-star. As for the muse bit, you seem to be saying that
749:
Are you aware that Emma
Thompson is 34770 characters (5729 words) "readable prose" and Philip Seymour Hoffman is 37754 characters (6210 words), while this article is 24671 characters (3939 words). Thompson is 41% longer in terms of characters and Hoffman is 53% longer. Good and featured articles
594:
One thing I could do is reduce the number of critics by only including those who have WP biographies and whose reviews were in works that have WP pages. By my count this would reduce the number of critics from 13 to 8. I don't know where 11 came from. I think I will do this just to shorten that
2309:
The GOCE is not the only issue here. The issue is that you withdrew a nomination with outstanding, substantial opposition and then opened a tactical re-nomination a week later after only a surface copyedit was done. This nomination has illustrated that substantive problems remain. You have been
1570:
It would be completely fine to just list the companies she did ads for early in her career. Remember, WP articles shouldn't be collections of all possible information available on a bio subject, but to present an overview with the essential facts. You have to be very selective with the content.
1302:
Tony, this is intended to be constructive criticism, but you're taking it way too personally. It is probably the reason why you've gone through 3 FAC nominations and 2 GOCEs already. I have nowhere implied that you should remove the comments which disagree that it promotes rape, simply that you
1198:
I've not even seen the video so I cannot comment on whether the song promotes rape; however, this is what the controversy was about, the critics said that it does. Again, you should not be adding more detail, but you need to remove the euphemisms, and synthesize
Ratajkowski's statements. E.g.
1766:
I don't know the exact hollywood lingo for the significance of her role. However, she had a significant enough role in the early part of the film that multiple critics noticed that she seemed to be conspicuously absent from the later parts of the film (as noted in the current version of the
766:
to restore WP:ICs. I am not sure if more content would have been removed if I had not voiced my concerns over the early content removal. Twofingered Typist can tell you if he would have preferred to remove more content. I am not averse to content being removed if it remains an article with
1365:
Every post dances around this. You keep saying critics cry Rape and
Ratajkowski disagrees. It is not just that Ratajkowski disagrees. Some critics disagree. This is an article about Ratajkowski. We present both sides and then present Ratajkowski's view. Whichever side her view is will be
1154:
you would be happy if only that side of the controversies was presented in the article. Currently, the article gives equal time to both sides in terms of identifying the controversies and then states Ratajkowski's opinions on the controversies. Do you think this is wrong in her BLP.--
1070:
If you read the press that goes beyond whether she i showing us her body again, you will note that she is mostly being discussed as it relates to this issue. Keep in mind that FAC3 demanded that I add more details on a host of issues, including the Blurred Lines controvesies and her
1704:
review —the writers of the review don't mean this seriously, the line is "Vince can't decide whether he's going to date actress Emily Ratajkowski (played with uncanny realism by actress Emily Ratajkowski)", i.e. of course it's realistic since she's playing herself—; the
1199:"Critics have alleged that the song and its video promote rape and rape culture because XYZ. Both Ratajkowski and Martel disagree, stating that the video..." + max. 1-2 quotes. Sorry, but the article doesn't currently give equal time to both sides of the controversy.
2244:
My intention was to withdraw and make one last run at a timely promotion. I have obviously run afoul of the rules by accident based on prior experience and lack of awareness of the rule changes. I would certainly appreciate a chance at a full run here at
663:
was on her own blog, would be removed. We would end up with 10 or 11 reviewers and we would lose the Lemire article which is one of the few that was actually inciteful about her role. Do you think I should cut out Lemire, Berardinelli and possibly
865:. It is hard to say what type of detail would bring a woman notable for modeling to WP:FA level recognition. I am more of a content gatherer than a copyeditor. So I will leave it to others to say what a good copy edit would entail.--
1988:
I'm in THS' corner here, Tony. There's a lot of undue weight in the article; you need to summarize. That said, given our previous disputes I'm not going to oppose to avoid the impression I'm going after you personally.
542:; or to have three sentences about her heritage; or to have an entire sub-section of seven paragraphs on a music video. A lot of the details in the article don't seem very noteworthy, e.g. in which cities she promoted
1250:
If you're going to write about the controversy, you need to represent the views of both sides. I'm sorry, but your comments are giving further reason to believe that the article is not as unbiased as it should be.
297:
170:
157:
1658:
In prior versions, I had statements about how major reviewers were silent on Ratajkowski and this was met with great opposition. You are asking me revert to a format that has already been disapproved of.--
1747:
Ratajkowski as an actor is a 'muse', when that's just a description of the character's role in the film in general. It would be fine to use it in your description of the role she plays (e.g. "In
1270:, do you acknowledge that some critics disagree with this claim? As I said, the article presents both sides with equal time and then presents Ratajkowski's opinions (because this is her bio).--
1709:
review doesn't describe Ratajkowski as a muse, but rather states that her character is intended to be the leading man's muse ("He finds a muse in the form of Stanford dropout Sophie").
1936:
that. Thus, the Lenny letter pargraph is all positive except for one critic who is negative while citing that she is in the minority. Do you have suggestions on this paragraph?--
195:
140:
1538:
figure out which ones they were. We almost have to say, go look for the really popular ones if you want to see them for yourself just to help the reader find them.--
1489:
Sure, but you're implying that the videos are the most popular because of Ratajkowski, and you can't use YT as a source for that. As such, it's OR and unnecessary.
839:
be removed - I checked several more famous models' pages and they do not contain such a table. A mention of two or three of the most important mags would suffice.
1453:
for numbers like followers, pageviews, likes, friends and such, if no better sources exist. It can not be the case that this content is both be from a RS and is
1028:
Yeah, I'll keep chipping away - something came up in "real life" recently and took me away from wiki, so I was absent for a couple of weeks, but I be back now.
1643:
review is still falsely cited as further evidence of this. You can simply state that she had a minor role in a major film, but wasn't mentioned in most reviews.
467:
470:- confused about discrepancy between author of photograph given as photographer in title of file name, and different person in "author" field on image page? —
40:
429:, which may address some of the issue related to tone, promotional issues, and neutrality. The article is greatly changed since the last FAC closed last week.
937:, you will see the edits that chopped content in a way that made certain facts no longer WP:V. You can see my outrage over this on my talk page. Then in the
1714:
The role was very extensive and much more than a cameo. You may have a case regarding uncanny, but I am not sure I understand your point regarding "muse".--
973:
Thank you for the clarification, but that's not what I mean at all. I mean that you should probably cut at least one third, perhaps even half of the prose.
2164:
GOCE request, I don't feel it is appropriate to remain active just to make a TFA date. I am also not willing to tolerate comments about reviewers such as
1318:
O.K. it appears that you do not acknowledge that some critics disagree. I understand detail needs to be removed. I am not really the person to do it.--
853:
I am aware that no models have a magazine cover listing, but there are also no articles regarding women who are primarily notable for being models at
1601:
Her role in the film was not major. Thus, there are not many sources that have substantial commentary on it. There was no cherrypicking. Her role in
2342:
30:
17:
1266:
In FAC3, I had difficulty getting one discussant to even acknowledge that some critics disagree with the claim that the song is a Rapist Anthem.
1398:
I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. What I said (once again), is that you should a.) acknowledge what the critics said (i.e. replace the weird
2353:
1874:
they can't do a lot. Especially not if they have to fear that the 'original' editor will be 'outraged' at them, like you describe above.
1700:, but rather appeared in a cameo role. The reviews are again interpreted as praise, even when they aren't, e.g. "uncanny realism" in the
2287:
2255:
2203:
2091:
2048:
2012:
1946:
1903:
1851:
1777:
1724:
1668:
1617:
1548:
1515:
1467:
1376:
1328:
1280:
1228:
1164:
1081:
1006:
951:
875:
816:
781:
706:
674:
605:
572:
439:
392:
346:
212:
91:
2376:
2323:
2304:
2272:
2239:
2220:
2181:
2154:
2127:
2108:
2065:
2029:
1993:
1982:
1963:
1920:
1883:
1868:
1830:
1794:
1760:
1741:
1685:
1652:
1634:
1580:
1565:
1532:
1498:
1484:
1411:
1393:
1359:
1345:
1312:
1297:
1260:
1245:
1181:
1125:
1098:
1037:
1023:
982:
968:
927:
892:
848:
833:
798:
762:
and questioning whether he should be removing content in that way. Note I was alarmed when I realized that his edits would require
737:
723:
691:
622:
589:
499:
481:
456:
409:
363:
229:
108:
2189:, Keep in mind that between FAC3 and FAC4 a solid attempt was made to address all unresolved issues from the prior FAC. See the
490:
cropped out. He was in the picture holding a camera; it was an image of a photographer, now it's just one of his models. --
554:, I forgot to ask you what you think of this. The 11 critics are the complete set of critics that reviewed WAYF at either
844:
1889:
I would like to improve the statements that you have issues with above, but I don't understand what the issues are.
131:
1893:, you have been a good intermediary in similar issues in the past. Can you explain the issue with these phrases.--
2123:
1978:
1879:
1826:
1756:
1648:
1576:
1494:
1407:
1355:
1308:
1256:
1121:
978:
923:
733:
487:
247:
317:
199:
1639:
Exactly — then there's no point in stating that a minor reviewer thinks the character is important, and the
1505:
draw their own conclusions as to whether Ratajkowski made the videos popular. Pageviews are what they are.--
1033:
840:
803:
755:
292:
259:
2002:
to respond to this issue. I guess I will have to do more. Let's see what I can do over the next 72 hours.--
2283:
2251:
2199:
2087:
2044:
2008:
1942:
1899:
1847:
1773:
1720:
1664:
1613:
1544:
1511:
1463:
1372:
1324:
1276:
1224:
1160:
1077:
1002:
947:
871:
812:
777:
702:
670:
601:
568:
531:
435:
388:
342:
208:
87:
2371:
2318:
2234:
2176:
530:— Ratajkowski has been notable for less than four years, yet the article is longer than the articles on
325:
267:
2119:
2078:
1974:
1875:
1822:
1752:
1644:
1572:
1490:
1403:
1351:
1304:
1267:
1252:
1117:
974:
919:
729:
551:
313:
263:
243:
2295:
2263:
2211:
2099:
2056:
2020:
1954:
1911:
1859:
1785:
1732:
1676:
1625:
1556:
1523:
1475:
1384:
1336:
1288:
1236:
1172:
1089:
1014:
959:
883:
824:
789:
714:
682:
613:
580:
447:
400:
354:
220:
99:
239:
126:
2346:
2299:
2267:
2215:
2103:
2060:
2024:
1958:
1915:
1863:
1789:
1736:
1680:
1629:
1560:
1527:
1479:
1388:
1340:
1292:
1240:
1176:
1093:
1018:
963:
887:
828:
793:
771:. If he feels he was hampered, I would welcome a further copyedit in which content remains WP:V.--
728:
Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis — that's the answer. Take a look at other actor FAs for examples.
718:
686:
617:
584:
451:
404:
358:
224:
103:
1029:
993:
652:
379:
329:
255:
546:, or all the magazines she was featured in during that time, or that she's hosted a VIP party.
2278:
2246:
2194:
2082:
2039:
2003:
1937:
1894:
1842:
1768:
1715:
1659:
1608:
1539:
1506:
1458:
1367:
1319:
1271:
1219:
1155:
1072:
997:
942:
866:
807:
772:
697:
665:
596:
563:
430:
418:
383:
337:
203:
178:
82:
72:
2291:
2259:
2207:
2095:
2052:
2016:
1950:
1907:
1855:
1781:
1728:
1672:
1621:
1552:
1519:
1471:
1380:
1332:
1284:
1232:
1168:
1085:
1010:
989:
955:
879:
820:
785:
751:
710:
678:
609:
576:
443:
426:
396:
350:
288:
216:
122:
95:
2364:
2311:
2227:
2186:
2169:
2150:
1603:
862:
636:
495:
374:
In an attempt to get further discussants involved, I have contacted the leading editors at "
321:
251:
61:
53:
422:
918:
that in order to improve the article, you need to cut unnecessary details and synthesize.
559:
309:
186:
1454:
1450:
854:
759:
2345:
has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
1116:
be able to express their sexuality (or to do what they want in general) without shame.
858:
660:
648:
640:
562:
who have WP biographies. I chose to use all 11 rather than cherry pick. Is that O.K.?--
477:
190:
174:
161:
768:
516:
While I appreciate all of the hard work you have done for the article, I will have to
2035:
1990:
656:
535:
375:
333:
283:
271:
165:
148:
144:
1218:
Yes many outspoken critics say that it does. As the article says, others disagree.--
235:
2360:
2146:
1890:
1841:
I am not sure what to make of this paragraph. The content has been copyedited.--
644:
491:
301:
279:
152:
57:
758:. I may have hampered him when he started making edits eliminating supporting
628:
555:
275:
182:
1399:
1350:
Exactly where do I say that I don't acknowledge that some critics disagree?
632:
472:
305:
135:
1607:
was not critically reviewed almost anywhere other than the sources cited.--
468:
File:Tony Kelly photographing Emily Ratajkowski for GQ Türkiye cropped.jpg
1973:
aren't fans of Ratajkowski to do what they see is best with the article.
696:
I have actually added the media outlet for Minow and Gray. Kenny too.--
298:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3
171:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2
158:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1
1751:, Ratajkowski plays X, the 'muse' of Zac Efron's character..." etc.).
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
2141:
As per last review (where I had a lot more to say) can still
425:
on her 25th birthday (June 7). This article has had a recent
857:. The closest we have to women notable for being models are
421:. I hope to get this promoted in time for consideration at
627:
Hmm. My counts are off. In the text, I did not note that
2190:
2165:
1999:
938:
934:
763:
486:
The file has been renamed to make more sense, now that
65:
196:
Knowledge (XXG):Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2
141:
Knowledge (XXG):Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1
1366:overweighted in her own article for this reason.--
933:I did not mean to confuse you. If you look at the
2384:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
417:This article is about American model and actress
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
2277:P.S. would you like me to withdraw the GOCE?--
2166:"fanatical opposers who have alterior motives"
2390:No further edits should be made to this page.
2359:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
534:(whose career spanned over two decades) and
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
996:will continue to copyedit this article.--
2226:important—the substance of them, is. --
1696:It doesn't seem like she co-starred in
992:for another copyedit. I also hope that
939:April 17 portion of the GOCE copyedit
935:April 15 portion of the GOCE copyedit
7:
941:very little content was removed.--
806:, could you please comment here.--
24:
234:The page's most active editors:
1449:Primary sources are considered
1:
511:Comments from TrueHeartSusie3
2145:. It hasn't gotten worse. --
520:, for the following reasons:
2354:featured article candidates
528:Length and excessive detail
31:featured article nomination
2407:
2377:22:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2324:22:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2305:06:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2273:06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2240:05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2221:02:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2182:16:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
2155:13:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
2128:07:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2109:02:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2066:06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
2030:06:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
1994:04:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
1983:08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
1964:03:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
1921:04:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
1884:08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
1869:03:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
1831:17:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1795:21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1761:19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1742:19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1686:20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1653:19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1635:19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1581:20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1566:20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1533:20:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1499:19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1485:19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1412:21:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1394:21:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1360:20:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1346:20:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1313:20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1298:20:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1261:20:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1246:20:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1182:19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1126:19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1099:19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1038:21:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
1024:20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
983:19:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
969:19:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
928:19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
893:19:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
849:19:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
834:19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
799:19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
738:08:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
724:03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
692:03:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
623:02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
590:23:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
500:13:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
482:17:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
457:04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
410:15:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
364:05:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
230:01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
132:Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/GA1
109:04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
488:Tony Kelly (photographer)
2387:Please do not modify it.
200:User:White Arabian Filly
36:Please do not modify it.
293:User:Twofingered Typist
143:discussants User:Cirt,
64:) 22:44, 26 April 2016
988:I have posted this at
532:Philip Seymour Hoffman
160:discussant User:Cirt,
2137:Comments from GRuban
1749:We Are Your Friends
544:We Are Your Friends
540:We Are Your Friends
318:White Arabian Filly
248:All Hallow's Wraith
127:User:Baffle gab1978
1437:Further examples:
1057:Bias, undue weight
841:Twofingered Typist
804:Twofingered Typist
756:Twofingered Typist
653:James Berardinelli
462:Comments from Cirt
380:Talk:Blurred Lines
260:American In Brazil
2303:
2271:
2219:
2161:Coordinator note:
2107:
2064:
2028:
1962:
1919:
1867:
1793:
1740:
1684:
1633:
1564:
1531:
1483:
1392:
1344:
1296:
1244:
1180:
1097:
1022:
967:
891:
832:
797:
722:
690:
621:
588:
455:
419:Emily Ratajkowski
408:
362:
228:
179:User:SandyGeorgia
112:
107:
73:Emily Ratajkowski
2398:
2389:
2374:
2369:
2363:goes through. --
2358:
2352:
2349:, and leave the
2321:
2316:
2281:
2249:
2237:
2232:
2197:
2179:
2174:
2085:
2042:
2006:
1985:TrueHeartSusie3
1940:
1897:
1886:TrueHeartSusie3
1845:
1833:TrueHeartSusie3
1771:
1763:TrueHeartSusie3
1718:
1662:
1655:TrueHeartSusie3
1611:
1542:
1509:
1501:TrueHeartSusie3
1461:
1370:
1362:TrueHeartSusie3
1322:
1315:TrueHeartSusie3
1274:
1263:TrueHeartSusie3
1222:
1158:
1075:
1000:
985:TrueHeartSusie3
945:
930:TrueHeartSusie3
869:
863:Deepika Padukone
810:
775:
700:
668:
647:was on redirect
637:Christopher Gray
599:
566:
433:
386:
340:
326:Figureskatingfan
206:
85:
79:
48:The article was
38:
2406:
2405:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2385:
2372:
2365:
2356:
2350:
2319:
2312:
2235:
2228:
2177:
2170:
2139:
2130:TrueHeartSusie3
2120:TrueHeartSusie3
2079:TrueHeartSusie3
1975:TrueHeartSusie3
1876:TrueHeartSusie3
1823:TrueHeartSusie3
1753:TrueHeartSusie3
1645:TrueHeartSusie3
1583:TrueHeartSusie3
1573:TrueHeartSusie3
1491:TrueHeartSusie3
1414:TrueHeartSusie3
1404:TrueHeartSusie3
1352:TrueHeartSusie3
1305:TrueHeartSusie3
1268:TrueHeartSusie3
1253:TrueHeartSusie3
1128:TrueHeartSusie3
1118:TrueHeartSusie3
975:TrueHeartSusie3
920:TrueHeartSusie3
740:TrueHeartSusie3
730:TrueHeartSusie3
560:Rotten Tomatoes
552:TrueHeartSusie3
513:
464:
314:General Ization
244:General Ization
187:User:Nikkimaria
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2404:
2402:
2393:
2392:
2380:
2379:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2275:
2138:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2112:
2111:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2032:
1967:
1966:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1711:
1710:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1568:
1444:
1443:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
859:Marilyn Monroe
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
694:
661:Christy Lemire
649:RogerEbert.com
641:Slant Magazine
625:
522:
521:
512:
509:
507:
505:
504:
503:
502:
463:
460:
415:
414:
413:
412:
369:
368:
367:
366:
295:
286:
240:Baffle gab1978
232:
193:
191:User:Elcobbola
175:User:Bollyjeff
168:
162:User:MaranoFan
155:
138:
129:
114:
113:
81:Nominator(s):
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2403:
2391:
2388:
2382:
2381:
2378:
2375:
2370:
2368:
2362:
2355:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2337:
2336:
2325:
2322:
2317:
2315:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2280:
2276:
2274:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2248:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2238:
2233:
2231:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2180:
2175:
2173:
2167:
2162:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2136:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2110:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2076:
2067:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2031:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1965:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1939:
1934:
1933:
1922:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1844:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1796:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1765:
1764:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1694:
1687:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1661:
1657:
1656:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1594:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1569:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1502:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1436:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1058:
1055:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:Chaheel Riens
1027:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
995:
994:Chaheel Riens
991:
987:
986:
984:
980:
976:
972:
971:
970:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
929:
925:
921:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
894:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
837:
836:
835:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
809:
805:
802:
801:
800:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
774:
770:
765:
761:
757:
753:
748:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
699:
695:
693:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
667:
662:
658:
657:Reelviews.net
654:
651:. Thus, only
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
624:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
598:
593:
592:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
549:
548:
547:
545:
541:
537:
536:Emma Thompson
533:
529:
526:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
514:
510:
508:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
474:
469:
466:
465:
461:
459:
458:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
432:
428:
424:
420:
411:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
381:
377:
376:Blurred Lines
373:
372:
371:
370:
365:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
335:
331:
330:Chaheel Riens
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:discussants:
299:
296:
294:
290:
287:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:Chaheel Riens
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
231:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
205:
201:
197:
194:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
167:
166:User:Karanacs
163:
159:
156:
154:
150:
149:User:Kiyoweap
146:
145:User:SNUGGUMS
142:
139:
137:
133:
130:
128:
124:
121:
120:
119:
118:
117:
111:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
84:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2386:
2383:
2366:
2339:Closing note
2338:
2313:
2279:TonyTheTiger
2247:TonyTheTiger
2229:
2195:TonyTheTiger
2171:
2160:
2142:
2140:
2083:TonyTheTiger
2040:TonyTheTiger
2004:TonyTheTiger
1938:TonyTheTiger
1895:TonyTheTiger
1843:TonyTheTiger
1821:
1813:
1769:TonyTheTiger
1748:
1716:TonyTheTiger
1706:
1701:
1697:
1660:TonyTheTiger
1640:
1609:TonyTheTiger
1602:
1540:TonyTheTiger
1507:TonyTheTiger
1459:TonyTheTiger
1368:TonyTheTiger
1320:TonyTheTiger
1272:TonyTheTiger
1220:TonyTheTiger
1156:TonyTheTiger
1073:TonyTheTiger
1056:
998:TonyTheTiger
943:TonyTheTiger
867:TonyTheTiger
808:TonyTheTiger
773:TonyTheTiger
698:TonyTheTiger
666:TonyTheTiger
597:TonyTheTiger
595:paragraph.--
564:TonyTheTiger
543:
539:
527:
517:
506:
471:
431:TonyTheTiger
416:
384:TonyTheTiger
338:TonyTheTiger
268:Thewildone85
204:TonyTheTiger
198:discussants
115:
83:TonyTheTiger
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
2367:Laser brain
2314:Laser brain
2230:Laser brain
2187:Laser_brain
2172:Laser brain
1767:article),--
1071:activism.--
764:these edits
655:who was in
645:Glenn Kenny
322:Nightscream
291:2 reviewer
252:Nightscream
173:discussant
153:User:Sigeng
125:1 reviewer
116:Notifying
54:Laser brain
2296:WP:CHICAGO
2264:WP:CHICAGO
2212:WP:CHICAGO
2100:WP:CHICAGO
2057:WP:CHICAGO
2021:WP:CHICAGO
2000:have tried
1955:WP:CHICAGO
1912:WP:CHICAGO
1860:WP:CHICAGO
1786:WP:CHICAGO
1733:WP:CHICAGO
1677:WP:CHICAGO
1626:WP:CHICAGO
1557:WP:CHICAGO
1524:WP:CHICAGO
1476:WP:CHICAGO
1400:euphemisms
1385:WP:CHICAGO
1337:WP:CHICAGO
1289:WP:CHICAGO
1237:WP:CHICAGO
1173:WP:CHICAGO
1090:WP:CHICAGO
1015:WP:CHICAGO
960:WP:CHICAGO
884:WP:CHICAGO
825:WP:CHICAGO
790:WP:CHICAGO
715:WP:CHICAGO
683:WP:CHICAGO
629:Nell Minow
614:WP:CHICAGO
581:WP:CHICAGO
556:Metacritic
448:WP:CHICAGO
401:WP:CHICAGO
355:WP:CHICAGO
310:SlimVirgin
264:Cliftonian
221:WP:CHICAGO
183:User:Masem
100:WP:CHICAGO
2347:WP:FAC/ar
2343:candidate
2300:WP:WAWARD
2268:WP:WAWARD
2216:WP:WAWARD
2104:WP:WAWARD
2061:WP:WAWARD
2025:WP:WAWARD
1959:WP:WAWARD
1916:WP:WAWARD
1864:WP:WAWARD
1790:WP:WAWARD
1737:WP:WAWARD
1698:Entourage
1681:WP:WAWARD
1630:WP:WAWARD
1604:Gone Girl
1561:WP:WAWARD
1528:WP:WAWARD
1480:WP:WAWARD
1389:WP:WAWARD
1341:WP:WAWARD
1293:WP:WAWARD
1241:WP:WAWARD
1177:WP:WAWARD
1094:WP:WAWARD
1019:WP:WAWARD
964:WP:WAWARD
888:WP:WAWARD
829:WP:WAWARD
794:WP:WAWARD
719:WP:WAWARD
687:WP:WAWARD
633:Beliefnet
618:WP:WAWARD
585:WP:WAWARD
452:WP:WAWARD
405:WP:WAWARD
359:WP:WAWARD
225:WP:WAWARD
136:User:Cirt
134:reviewer
104:WP:WAWARD
2341:: This
2036:The ed17
754:-member
664:Kenny?--
334:Ealdgyth
284:Mbinebri
272:SNUGGUMS
50:archived
2292:WP:FOUR
2260:WP:FOUR
2208:WP:FOUR
2143:support
2096:WP:FOUR
2053:WP:FOUR
2017:WP:FOUR
1951:WP:FOUR
1908:WP:FOUR
1856:WP:FOUR
1782:WP:FOUR
1729:WP:FOUR
1673:WP:FOUR
1622:WP:FOUR
1553:WP:FOUR
1520:WP:FOUR
1472:WP:FOUR
1381:WP:FOUR
1333:WP:FOUR
1285:WP:FOUR
1233:WP:FOUR
1169:WP:FOUR
1086:WP:FOUR
1011:WP:FOUR
990:WP:GOCE
956:WP:FOUR
880:WP:FOUR
821:WP:FOUR
786:WP:FOUR
752:WP:GOCE
711:WP:FOUR
679:WP:FOUR
639:was on
631:was on
610:WP:FOUR
577:WP:FOUR
444:WP:FOUR
427:WP:GOCE
397:WP:FOUR
351:WP:FOUR
289:WP:GOCE
236:Tinton5
217:WP:FOUR
123:WP:GOCE
96:WP:FOUR
2373:(talk)
2320:(talk)
2245:FAC.--
2236:(talk)
2178:(talk)
2147:GRuban
1891:GRuban
1702:Philly
760:WP:ICs
518:oppose
492:GRuban
423:WP:TFA
378:" and
302:GRuban
282:, and
280:N0n3up
189:, and
58:FACBot
2034:P.S.
1814:Prose
1707:Slant
1641:Salon
1455:WP:OR
1451:WP:RS
855:WP:FA
276:Guat6
16:<
2191:diff
2168:. --
2151:talk
2124:talk
1979:talk
1880:talk
1827:talk
1757:talk
1649:talk
1577:talk
1495:talk
1408:talk
1356:talk
1309:talk
1257:talk
1122:talk
1034:talk
979:talk
924:talk
861:and
845:talk
769:WP:V
734:talk
496:talk
478:talk
473:Cirt
306:Cirt
164:and
62:talk
56:via
2361:bot
1457:.--
558:or
382:.--
52:by
2357:}}
2351:{{
2298:/
2294:/
2290:/
2286:/
2266:/
2262:/
2258:/
2254:/
2214:/
2210:/
2206:/
2202:/
2153:)
2126:)
2102:/
2098:/
2094:/
2090:/
2059:/
2055:/
2051:/
2047:/
2023:/
2019:/
2015:/
2011:/
1998:I
1991:Ed
1981:)
1957:/
1953:/
1949:/
1945:/
1914:/
1910:/
1906:/
1902:/
1882:)
1862:/
1858:/
1854:/
1850:/
1829:)
1788:/
1784:/
1780:/
1776:/
1759:)
1735:/
1731:/
1727:/
1723:/
1679:/
1675:/
1671:/
1667:/
1651:)
1628:/
1624:/
1620:/
1616:/
1579:)
1559:/
1555:/
1551:/
1547:/
1526:/
1522:/
1518:/
1514:/
1497:)
1478:/
1474:/
1470:/
1466:/
1410:)
1387:/
1383:/
1379:/
1375:/
1358:)
1339:/
1335:/
1331:/
1327:/
1311:)
1291:/
1287:/
1283:/
1279:/
1259:)
1239:/
1235:/
1231:/
1227:/
1175:/
1171:/
1167:/
1163:/
1124:)
1092:/
1088:/
1084:/
1080:/
1036:)
1017:/
1013:/
1009:/
1005:/
981:)
962:/
958:/
954:/
950:/
926:)
886:/
882:/
878:/
874:/
847:)
827:/
823:/
819:/
815:/
792:/
788:/
784:/
780:/
736:)
717:/
713:/
709:/
705:/
685:/
681:/
677:/
673:/
659:,
643:,
635:,
616:/
612:/
608:/
604:/
583:/
579:/
575:/
571:/
498:)
480:)
450:/
446:/
442:/
438:/
403:/
399:/
395:/
391:/
357:/
353:/
349:/
345:/
336:--
332:,
328:,
324:,
320:,
316:,
312:,
308:,
304:,
278:,
274:,
270:,
266:,
262:,
258:,
254:,
250:,
246:,
242:,
238:,
223:/
219:/
215:/
211:/
202:--
185:,
181:,
177:,
151:,
147:,
102:/
98:/
94:/
90:/
67:.
33:.
2302:)
2288:C
2284:T
2282:(
2270:)
2256:C
2252:T
2250:(
2218:)
2204:C
2200:T
2198:(
2149:(
2122:(
2106:)
2092:C
2088:T
2086:(
2063:)
2049:C
2045:T
2043:(
2027:)
2013:C
2009:T
2007:(
1977:(
1961:)
1947:C
1943:T
1941:(
1918:)
1904:C
1900:T
1898:(
1878:(
1866:)
1852:C
1848:T
1846:(
1825:(
1792:)
1778:C
1774:T
1772:(
1755:(
1739:)
1725:C
1721:T
1719:(
1683:)
1669:C
1665:T
1663:(
1647:(
1632:)
1618:C
1614:T
1612:(
1575:(
1563:)
1549:C
1545:T
1543:(
1530:)
1516:C
1512:T
1510:(
1493:(
1482:)
1468:C
1464:T
1462:(
1406:(
1391:)
1377:C
1373:T
1371:(
1354:(
1343:)
1329:C
1325:T
1323:(
1307:(
1295:)
1281:C
1277:T
1275:(
1255:(
1243:)
1229:C
1225:T
1223:(
1179:)
1165:C
1161:T
1159:(
1120:(
1096:)
1082:C
1078:T
1076:(
1032:(
1021:)
1007:C
1003:T
1001:(
977:(
966:)
952:C
948:T
946:(
922:(
890:)
876:C
872:T
870:(
843:(
831:)
817:C
813:T
811:(
796:)
782:C
778:T
776:(
732:(
721:)
707:C
703:T
701:(
689:)
675:C
671:T
669:(
620:)
606:C
602:T
600:(
587:)
573:C
569:T
567:(
494:(
476:(
454:)
440:C
436:T
434:(
407:)
393:C
389:T
387:(
361:)
347:C
343:T
341:(
227:)
213:C
209:T
207:(
106:)
92:C
88:T
86:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.