Janice Min has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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 28, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janice Min article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
I'm concerned that this page seems to focus almost (or entirely) exclusively on accolades/awards/praise of Min. It seems unbalanced. I trimmed quite a bit of promotional content, but this article needs more work to bring it into compliance with WP:BALASPS. For example, there's the criticism of her bemoaning post-partum weight loss standards while focusing on post-baby weight loss in her publications [1] and there's "Min's success thrills people like her boss, Jann Wenner, the chairman of Wenner Media. But it's not universally trumpeted..." etc. [2]. Right now this article is looking more like a resume/awards sheet and less like an encyclopedia article. Any help in fixing it up is welcome. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
As @ Smartse: had the unfortunate experience of encountering, this article has been subjected to poor, conflicted, paid editing. The career section is filled mostly with trivial awards. The article omits significant details about a controversy about her book and it doesn't mention her $2 million pay at US Weekly, which is widely reported in numerous, credible, mainstream newspapers. This behavior is especially unfortunate for this page, since an NPOV article that is representative of reliable sources is still quite positive and depicts her as an effective (read amazing) turnaround artist for struggling publications during a period of general decline in publishing.
To the point, to address all this, I've prepared a draft at Talk:Janice_Min/draft that has one more paragraph in the early life section and a re-written career section. Was hoping someone would have some time to consider my work. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 23:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll wait a bit to make sure it's stable before taking it the usual GA round. I'll also be doing The Hollywood Reporter eventually, which has a lot of overlap with this page, if you're interested in taking a look later on. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I will review this article. There is one image used in the article,
File:JaniceMin.jpg, which is hosted on
Wikimedia Commons and is confirmed via
WP:OTRS as a free-use-licensed file. I had a look over the article a few days ago (
diff), and it appears that both the article edit history and its talk page appear stable and without any conflict or ongoing problems going back over three (3) months. Rest of review pending. —
Cirt (
talk) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think External Links normally use archive URLs (that's an external link showing up in the tool) David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) ( Talk) 00:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 27, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt ( talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Some additional points on revisiting:
Good job so far, — Cirt ( talk) 16:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes - it's a complicated issue for me. For example I skimmed the current nominations just now for any org/bio/business/product pages along the lines of where I am experienced enough to review. HTC First came to mind, but as an Android phone, it most likely uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon chip, where I have a COI, and my involvement would lead to accusations of impropriety. Andrew M. Gleason is dead, so there's unlikely to be any COI issues, but the first thing I notice is that the Wikipedia editor authoring the page has an article about himself that probably shouldn't exist. In my experience, when I make edits that editors don't like, or fail their GA review, or provide feedback on the nomination instead of just passing it, they sometimes follow me around and make contentious edits on articles where they know I have a COI in revenge (or on articles where they accuse me of having a COI, but none actually exists). Basically as a paid editor there is nowhere I can edit that won't lead to drama and accusations of impropriety, hence my being semi-retired. I'm also the only one making any good GA nominations on business pages most of the time, which is where I'm experienced in editing. Although it's regarding a nom, rather than a review, you can get an idea of what I mean here. This kind of drama happens I'd say in about 50% of the reviews I've done. I'm definitely willing to pay it forward. I've made 38k+ edits and most of those are on a volunteer basis. But if doing so leads to constant harassment, drama, accusations of impropriety and deriding remarks, then I am in a bit of a pickle, not wanting to volunteer for such abuse. CorporateM ( Talk) 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Passed as GA. My thanks to CorporateM as GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. — Cirt ( talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The Lead identifies the article-subject as "Janice Byung Min". I would like to request we remove her middle-name, as just "Janice Min" is her WP:COMMMONNAME (there are 49,000 search results for "Janice Min" and 278 for "Janice Byung Min") and we tend to favor the article-subject's preference if possible and not against COMMONNAME (she has requested it). CorporateM ( Talk) 11:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Janice Min has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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 28, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janice Min article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
I'm concerned that this page seems to focus almost (or entirely) exclusively on accolades/awards/praise of Min. It seems unbalanced. I trimmed quite a bit of promotional content, but this article needs more work to bring it into compliance with WP:BALASPS. For example, there's the criticism of her bemoaning post-partum weight loss standards while focusing on post-baby weight loss in her publications [1] and there's "Min's success thrills people like her boss, Jann Wenner, the chairman of Wenner Media. But it's not universally trumpeted..." etc. [2]. Right now this article is looking more like a resume/awards sheet and less like an encyclopedia article. Any help in fixing it up is welcome. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
As @ Smartse: had the unfortunate experience of encountering, this article has been subjected to poor, conflicted, paid editing. The career section is filled mostly with trivial awards. The article omits significant details about a controversy about her book and it doesn't mention her $2 million pay at US Weekly, which is widely reported in numerous, credible, mainstream newspapers. This behavior is especially unfortunate for this page, since an NPOV article that is representative of reliable sources is still quite positive and depicts her as an effective (read amazing) turnaround artist for struggling publications during a period of general decline in publishing.
To the point, to address all this, I've prepared a draft at Talk:Janice_Min/draft that has one more paragraph in the early life section and a re-written career section. Was hoping someone would have some time to consider my work. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 23:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll wait a bit to make sure it's stable before taking it the usual GA round. I'll also be doing The Hollywood Reporter eventually, which has a lot of overlap with this page, if you're interested in taking a look later on. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I will review this article. There is one image used in the article,
File:JaniceMin.jpg, which is hosted on
Wikimedia Commons and is confirmed via
WP:OTRS as a free-use-licensed file. I had a look over the article a few days ago (
diff), and it appears that both the article edit history and its talk page appear stable and without any conflict or ongoing problems going back over three (3) months. Rest of review pending. —
Cirt (
talk) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think External Links normally use archive URLs (that's an external link showing up in the tool) David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) ( Talk) 00:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 27, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt ( talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Some additional points on revisiting:
Good job so far, — Cirt ( talk) 16:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes - it's a complicated issue for me. For example I skimmed the current nominations just now for any org/bio/business/product pages along the lines of where I am experienced enough to review. HTC First came to mind, but as an Android phone, it most likely uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon chip, where I have a COI, and my involvement would lead to accusations of impropriety. Andrew M. Gleason is dead, so there's unlikely to be any COI issues, but the first thing I notice is that the Wikipedia editor authoring the page has an article about himself that probably shouldn't exist. In my experience, when I make edits that editors don't like, or fail their GA review, or provide feedback on the nomination instead of just passing it, they sometimes follow me around and make contentious edits on articles where they know I have a COI in revenge (or on articles where they accuse me of having a COI, but none actually exists). Basically as a paid editor there is nowhere I can edit that won't lead to drama and accusations of impropriety, hence my being semi-retired. I'm also the only one making any good GA nominations on business pages most of the time, which is where I'm experienced in editing. Although it's regarding a nom, rather than a review, you can get an idea of what I mean here. This kind of drama happens I'd say in about 50% of the reviews I've done. I'm definitely willing to pay it forward. I've made 38k+ edits and most of those are on a volunteer basis. But if doing so leads to constant harassment, drama, accusations of impropriety and deriding remarks, then I am in a bit of a pickle, not wanting to volunteer for such abuse. CorporateM ( Talk) 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Passed as GA. My thanks to CorporateM as GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. — Cirt ( talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The Lead identifies the article-subject as "Janice Byung Min". I would like to request we remove her middle-name, as just "Janice Min" is her WP:COMMMONNAME (there are 49,000 search results for "Janice Min" and 278 for "Janice Byung Min") and we tend to favor the article-subject's preference if possible and not against COMMONNAME (she has requested it). CorporateM ( Talk) 11:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)