Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment following a request on the article talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Lead: The issue was a chance for the magazine to exploit the anniversary of its earlier success. This more or less repeats ... to commemorate Leibovitz's More Demi Moore cover photo of Demi Moore one year earlier. Done
Merged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead contains information that is not in the article and does not fully summarise the article. Example: The converse of this image serves as the cover to Gair's second bodypainting book, Body Painting. - the book is just mentioned in passing in th rest of the artcile. Please read WP:LEAD. Done
I have reworked the WP:LEAD a bit. Not sure the book should be removed from the WP:LEAD, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic perspective: The Amazon.com product description for Gair's book calls it her "defining moment",[9] and soon after the release of the magazine Gair became such a pop culture icon that she was considered for an Absolut Vodka Absolut Gair ad campaign according to a story in The New York Times. changes subject halfway through - starts with book and then chnages to magazine. Done
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details: They would have used "Kryolan, a glycerine-based makeup made in Germany that washes off easily and won't clog pores" - a little bit of OR there, doesn't say that was used in the Demi Moore shoot, in which Ponder wasn't involved. Done
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Demi Moore: It had a cultural impact by causing numerous celebrities to pose for photographs in advanced pregnancy, which has made pregnancy photos fashionable and created a profitable business. Need to spell out - more profitable for whom? Done
Fixed (by looking at the cited source and editing accordingly). -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Did no one complain about this picture? Needs a section on negative reception.~~ Y
It wouldn't surprise me at all if talk-radio jocks, evangelical preachers, and the like objected to the picture. (I mean, gawsh, ladybumps! Nipples!) The views of such boneheads are already amply represented on the web and in Wikipedia. But I suppose that anyone who can find reliable sources attesting to the existence of such views and their significance outside a mere echo-chamber of prudes would be free to add them here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think we need some more commentary on the artistry of the picture - what we have the moment is comment on the artistry of the photograph, rather than detail of how it was taken.~~
~~Sorry if I seem thick but I don't understand you here. Could you rephrase?~~ -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, what I meant to say is: I think we need some more commentary on the artistry of the picture - what we have the moment is comment on the detail of how it was taken, rather than artistic criticism.
Ah, now I understand. Yes, that's a reasonable request. I suppose a book or article about the photographer could well say something useful here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~ref #10 [1] is a dead link, domain expired.~~ Done
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR: see note about Details above

Other sources are RS
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~Negative reception needed, there must have been some from the league of Decency or Daughter of the Revoltion , etc.~~
Oh yes, it would have pressed their red buttons. But would anyone outside this prissy demographic have paid any attention? (When there's an article somehow related to biology, we don't routinely add a paragraph about the response of believers in "creationism" -- aka "intelligent design" -- though they presumably have boilerplate about it on their websites.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, but as a media event there must have been such a response, a balanced article should contain it. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Until I can find this work in art books, this is all we have got.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Art books are unlikely to waste space on the predictable witterings of the booboisie. If we're looking for rent-an-affronted-quote, perhaps we need to search the archives of the "Focus on the Family" website or wherever it is that the righteously indignant US Americans hang out. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried googling a combination of search strings for this together with the name of one US evangelical windbag after another, but turned up nothing. Perhaps the easily affronted demographic isn't as fanatical as I'd thought, or perhaps its indignation over the display of Ms Moore's painted ladybumps came and went before the internets were invented. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I tried using LexisNexis, lots of outrage about the pregnancy picture, but nothing about this, I guess that is American moral values for you, thanks for trying. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think all concerns have been met, so I am happy to confirm status as a good article. Thanks for your hard work. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]