Talk:Celebrity Number Six

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that retired model Leticia Sardá had no idea she was the subject of a four-year global search?

• Source: Kircher 2024, Matossian 2024

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KMSU

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk) and Tamzin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 73 past nominations.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Can you point out where in the article the hook's information is present? I can find sources for the start and end dates, but don't see any definitive statement she was unaware of it the whole time. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Mrfoogles: thanks for the review! I've added that bit to the article, sourced to Kircher 2024. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Going to leave this for a 2nd opinion because I'm new; not sure about the rules if parts of the hook are present in different parts of the article. Also would like a double-check of the copyright check (I've done Earwig without Google and googled a few phrases, but I'm not sure if that's all). One thing is that the sentence saying she was unaware isn't actually cited at the end of the sentence as required; it's clear that that is the citation, but per the rules I think it needs to be. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • I've added the duplicate citation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question, it is permissible for a hook to be based on facts mentioned in separate parts of the article, the only important thing is that they're all cited with footnotes at the relevant sentences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles: Fixed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, everything seems to be resolved except I'll leave it for a second reviewer to double-check the copyright checking. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, approving it: that mostly takes a very long time and I’m reasonably confident the article is not a copyright violation. Mrfoogles (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Legality

One thing that remains unclear to me is how the photo ended up on the curtain. Some pictures adapted on the same fabric apparently came from Getty, which indicates they might have been licensed (though most likely still in violation of the terms).

Is (or was) this type of (likely) unauthorized adaptation of professionally taken photos or images of celebrities in consumer goods common in Europe? Such a product seems unthinkable in (say) the US, yet Anttila appears to have been a legitimate large business. Are moral rights and personality rights simply not respected/enforced/litigated in Europe (at least when it comes to products like this)? Nardog (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the article, Escorsell says he did not license the use. It's possible he's wrong (sublicense, faulty memory, etc.), which is why the statement is attributed in-text, but if he's right, that wouldn't really surprise me. IP violations on textiles are pretty common, or at least that's my impression. And if this were litigated it's not clear who the liability would have fallen on—conceivably just a single subcontractor of Latky Mraz. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have little doubt that the use wasn't authorized, but what surprises me is that it was sold by a retail chain in Finland. I'd love some more context around this (if there are RSes). Nardog (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog: I didn't come across anything like that, probably because accusing a big retailer of committing copyright infringement is probably not something you want to do based on someone's recollection. But I think it's inferable from the article that the print was probably unauthorized. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, there's no doubt some rights (if not the photographers' copyright then definitely the subjects' personality rights) were violated in the production and selling of the fabric; I'm just wondering how prevalent that is in mass-produced consumer goods in Europe. Nardog (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent tagging and AFD

@Qwirkle, you've removed my comment on your talk page and suggested I go here, so here I am. What makes you want to delete this article? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 23:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you want to keep it. I see it as ephemeral pop-culture, which is only important when it has some sustained presence. This does not yet, and I would guess will not, but it is entirely possible that some hand...or flipper, more likely... will write of this a few hundred years from now as the sort of idiocy that humanity thought was significant right before they roasted themselves. The fact that it is so excruciatingly badly wtitten is just gravy. Qwirkle (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Well, I can't answer for humanity's priorities, nor for reliable sources' choices in what to write about, nor for the community's choice of what to consider notable. As to the part I can answer for, if there are prose issues you'd like to raise, I'm happy to address them. Or you could, of course, fix them yourself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So, from my viewpoint, the only suggestion you have is for me to put lipstick on your pig. Seriously, now: if someone honestly considers an article not worth having, what point is there in prettifying it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

More that this is an article talkpage, and is supposed to be used for improving the article, not for levying vague insults. Are you just here to come up with different ways to say "your shit sucks", or would you like to help build an encyclopedia? If the former, feel free to not reply. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is conceivably, and probably accurately, why user:mwwv pinged me here, I suppose. What you have done, however, is suggest to someone who thinks a topic doesn't really belong in a general encyclopedia at all, should work to improve the article. That's just silly. Qwirkle (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No. You've said the article is excruciatingly badly written. That is not something anyone's ever said before about something I wrote, on-wiki or off-. So I take that charge very seriously, and want to know what to fix. But since you can't actually explain what parts you think are badly written, I'll just chalk it up as a lazy generic insult and move on with my life. See you around the wiki, hopefully when you're in a better mood. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Complete with the mandatory declaration-of-victory-flounce. Again.

If someone - anyone - doesn't see an article as needed, they have no reason to work on it. They have no reason, even, to have someone else work on it. It really is that simple. Qwirkle (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your latter point is just completely false. From what I've seen (usually in draftspace), whenever someone (an AfC reviewer in the case of draftspace) says something shouldn't get an article, the creator of it and/or someone else will probably try to improve said article. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have completely misread what I wrote. if someone (rightly or wrongly) sees an article as useless, why must they themselves feel a need to improve it?

Sure, the original author might feel a compulsion. A passerby? Maybe.

That said, I'm dropping this off my watchlist for now. Qwirkle (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Celebrity Number Six/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tamzin (talk · contribs) & theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 06:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• This was an interesting read. It's obviously rather frivolous, but I enjoyed it.
  •  Fixed unfrivolified article :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Reference 10 and 15 are duplicates (both https://www.avclub.com/celebrity-number-six-identified).
  •  Fixed -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• reviewing every photo on Getty Images taken by the photographers of the other seven images – not quite accurate without some kind of temporal qualifier.
  •  Fixed -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Commentators discussed how AI [...] posed the risk of similar mysteries becoming unsolvable in the future due to increasingly plausible deepfakes. – this does not seem like it's saying the same thing the body is.
  • Fixed by clarifying body; see below -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    • It's something of a better match now, but "unsolvable" is much stronger than anything in the body. I might say that future searches could get frustrated or something along those lines. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Reworded further. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Origins and unsuccessful efforts to identify

• even the gender of Celebrity Number Six was not agreed on by users, although female seemed more likely – "seemed more likely"?
  • I don't think "seemed more plausible" is really an improvement—in whose opinion? Was it the generally favoured option by the reddit users? TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think that's about what VF is trying to say- clarified :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• using Pinterest to try to generate similar images – I don't think the meaning of this is clear. I had to read the cited source to understand what they did.
  • both fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Identification as Leticia Sardá

• A moderator who had been in conflict with IndigoRoom resigned the same day – I don't get "the same day" from the cited source?
  • Good catch,  Fixed -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure "two days later" is right either, going by the source. How about "within days"? TompaDompa (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      • The success post was on the 9th, and the resignation was announced on the 11th, but the actual announcement is vaguer about timing than the paraphrase in Watercutter, so upon review I think we actually need to go further than your suggestion, as we can't conclusively say the resignation happened after the post. So I've changed it to "around the same time", which I think is a common-sense interpretation of "'days ago', as of two days later". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sardá's reaction

• She created accounts on a number of social media sites – that's going a bit beyond the cited source's "downloaded, like, 27 apps in the last two days".
  • Supplemented with Pérez Colomé citation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Sardá and Escorsell both spoke highly of the politeness of the redditors they interacted with. – the cited source says "Both Sardá and Escorsell highlight the kindness and politeness of Reddit users when they contacted them." That's a bit too WP:Close paraphrasing for my comfort.
  •  Reworded -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

• either personal projects or on behalf of similar communities – the cited source only seems to mention the latter?
  • Fixed – I think I subconsciously read "pet project" as "individual project". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• "something of a participant" sport – a bit odd not to include "sport" in the quote.
  •  Fixed typo -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• similarly found it significant due to the role of AI, as generative AI became increasingly able to create images that look like real photographs – I don't think the meaning of this is clear.
  • I've elaborated on his meaning, which I think should also resolve the question about lede consistency -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Koebler and Lim compared the lack of archival of the 2006 photo of Sardá to the phenomenon of link rot, both showing how work that seems permanent can in fact be ephemeral. – I don't get this from the cited source, or at least not from the indicated location (26:20)?
  • It's a point they make at some length in the 3ish minutes following that. I could put an end timestamp in too, if you think that's clearer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't listen for that long. Alright, I have since listened to the end and read the transcript. I still think this is a stretch, or at least not quite right. Koebler brings up link rot in the context of having written articles for Vice that have since become unavailable, but what they connect this to is less the photo than Sardá's lack of an online presence on the whole/as a person. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      • That's a fair critique. Listening to it again, I'm not sure there's a coherent enough point in the end to be worth paraphrasing it. I've removed the sentence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Emma Keates of The A.V. Club speculated that "As the world moves further away from not just physical media but reality itself, we'll probably see fewer of these types of mysteries continuing to crop up", referencing use of AI-generated images in ads for the film Civil War and in the documentary What Jennifer Did. "For now, though," Keates concludes, such mysteries are "one of the last great bastions of the early days of the internet". – this is both very heavy on the use of direct quotes and rather unclear.
  • Reworded. Now only quoting bits that are pure opinion and thus unsuitable to paraphrase. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   See above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but see above about WP:Close paraphrasing and an instance of overusing direct quotes. These concerns have since been satisfactorily addressed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No obvious omissions.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No obvious neutrality issues.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There has been substantial editing recently, so I'll wait a few days to make sure it subsides before closing this.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Almost there. And now it is.

Ping Tamzin. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: thanks for the review! I think we've responded to everything :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I think that's now everything outstanding dealt with. Thanks for a great review! :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So it is, and having taken a slightly closer look at the edit history I'm also confident that it meets the stability criterion. The article passes. Good job! TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silhouette?

Hi Tamzin and leeky, interesting read about citizen detectives, thanks.

I don't understand why some discussions called the print on the fabric a "silhouette". The original colour photo has been treated by one or more processes to be monochromatic before or during printing on the fabric, but it isn't a silhouette.

Also, in this sentence "The print consisted of eight black and blue monochrome silhouettes repeating", perhaps change "and" to 'or'? Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Took a stab at fixing it! Will confer more with Tamzin tomorrow, might end up tweaking it again. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks leeky, much better! JennyOz (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)