Misplaced Pages

Talk:More Demi Moore: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:38, 21 March 2008 editTonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers401,306 edits →GA notes: update progress← Previous edit Revision as of 04:40, 21 March 2008 edit undoCasliber (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,925 edits GA passedNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GAN|03:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)|status=on hold}} {{GA|04:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)}}
{{dyktalk|23 February|2008}} {{dyktalk|23 February|2008}}
{{WikiProjectBanners| {{WikiProjectBanners|

Revision as of 04:40, 21 March 2008

Good articlesMore Demi Moore has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 21, 2008.
A fact from More Demi Moore appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 February 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/February.
Misplaced Pages
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconVisual arts
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
Template:WikiProject HOP

Um, really?

We read: The use of a pregnant sex symbol was in a sense an attempt to combat the pop culture representations of the anathema of the awkward, uncomfortable, and grotesquely excessive female form in a culture that covets thinness. And in another sense an attempt to draw attention to the mag and sell more copies, I'd guess. But forget that; instead, the former. How do we know?

Leibovitz' open and direct portrayal led to divided opinions. The photograph was highly provocative.... It was? I see a photo of a pregnant woman done up very elegantly and covering her naughty bits. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Background

We read (after markup stripping): Willis was already an A-list star, having earned $10 million for both Look Who's Talking (1989) and Look Who's Talking Too (1990) as well as $5 million for Die Hard (1989) and $7.5 million for Die Hard 2 (1990).

And so? I suppose this helps to say "So Moore probably wasn't doing it because she needed the money"; but I think the starstruck account of her own huge earnings have already made this point. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA notes

Ok then...looks pretty good at first glance:

I'm happy with the fair use rationale of each of the images. (obvious really)
  • It spawned criticism as well as parody and follow-ups. Critical reviews ranged from opinions of it as an artistic statement to opinions that it is grotesque and obscene. - this is a bit clunky as is. Given the dated nature of teh magazine from 1991, I'd use past tense here. I would have begun with a poisitive legacy and then said "besides popualrising (or whatever) there was a balcklash (or something similar) and note the criticism and parody"Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The use of a pregnant sex symbol was in a sense an attempt to combat the pop culture representations of the anathema of the awkward, uncomfortable, and grotesquely excessive female form in a culture that covets thinness. - I think this one needs a ref, also "values" may be better than "covets" (reminds me of greed etc.). Bolded bit redudnant too

More to come. Finally, not really an issue here but if this were going to FAC, a paragraph on pregnancy fetishism tp place this all in context would be interesting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:More Demi Moore: Difference between revisions Add topic