I am challenging the propriety of the Talk:Justine Ezarik/GA2 delisting decision that was supposedly based on WP:WIAGA 2c and 6b. The bulk of the disagreement was based on a disagreement on removal of images from the article. I requested an outside party give a third opinion on the issue. The following are the image issues
The basic argument against these images was that "If the images are not depicting anything very noteworthy in the subjects career/life, which is what it looks like, then they should probably be removed."
There is also a disagreement about WP:PRIMARY in terms of two elements of the article that only have primary sources. The reviewer feels that primary sources necessarily mean WP:OR.
These are the only two items that led to the delisting. I do not believe either is valid.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
How are they related to the internet? As a reader, I don't know what a 'New Media Expo 2008', 'myspace party', 'podcamp az' or 'Intel insider event' is. I don't know what they are because they are not mentioned in the text.-- Tempest429 ( talk) 21:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Recommend Overturn with encouragement to reconsider the number of images (see below) and to improve captioning (see below). The images themselves appear relevant to the topic, as per GAR.
In detail: I suspect that we need to distinguish clearly the questions of the relevance of the image to the topic, and the suitability of the captions. Referring back to the GAR standard: "every included image must be relevant to the topic, and must have a suitable caption. Purely decorative images, such as an image of a butterfly in a psychology article about emotions, should be removed." also, "A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article."
That way, all would link back to a point in the text (her eJustine persona, and her earning money through online promotional events and technology conferences respectively). Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
How is a portrait of the subject with her hands open, or holding a glass related to internet activities?-- Tempest429 ( talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm just looking at the two issues mentioned above and making a good-faith assumption that everything else satisfies the GA criteria. I cant vote for it yet as-is, but I think this is fixable. Aaron north ( T/ C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
1. Images - of the three images mentioned by Hchc2009, I am fine with the first 2, but not the 3rd. Given her "lifecasting" and youtube channels, an appearance speaking to an audience at podcamp and an appearance with a panel at the New Media Expo are both relevant. The other 4 images should be removed. We don't need more than one new media expo image, I don't understand why a face shot with a glass supposedly taken at a myspace party is relevant (what does she have to do with myspace re: the text?), and I have no clue why I am looking at her speaking at an intel insider event. What is she doing with intel? Looks decorative. Aaron north ( T/ C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2. OR - I do agree that a primary source can be used when a good secondary source can not be found, but it can only be used for data (where were you born, how old are you, what is your job, etc). Saying that there are two characters and describing what they look like can be fine if done carefully. Describing eJustine's behavior and speculating on her motivation requires an analysis of a primary source, and thus OR. I assume you can't find a reliable secondary source, so I believe this flaw can be easily cured by removing the bolded text in: (In a few of her YouTube videos, in addition to her common persona as iJustine, she played the role of an additional character eJustine, who acts as a sort of antagonist against protagonist iJustine.) The sentence following that is a bit iffy (subjective descriptions of "normal", "wild", "strange-looking"), but that is pretty minor compared to the OR in the preceding sentence. (incidentally now that I notice, is it permitted to bold a subject's alternative name or identifier outside the lead?) Also, now that I step back from this one little tree and look at the entire forest, is this silly side-story with ejustine even relevant? Due to source questions its inclusion is problematic anyway, I might recommend just removing that whole thing and be done with it. Aaron north ( T/ C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Since we are getting feedback on the photos as I had hoped in the original debate, I would like to understand why neither image with fellow internet personality Gary Vaynerchuk is considered relevant. I am removing the one with several unnamed subjects, but the The one with fellow internet personalities Vaynerchuk and Leo Laporte seems to represent something relevant. In fact, I am tweaking the image header to say the following: "New Media Expo 2008 images with internet personalities". Can I get some feedback.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with removing all of the eJusting stuff and have done so.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I am travelling and don't have time to fully respond to the Myspace and Intel images, but she is widely associated with many internet and technology brands. In some of her more notable early career highly-viewed youtube videos she did painted the logos of several dozen brands on easter eggs one year. I am travelling today and do not have time to discuss further. Will respond later tonight.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If I were to cut two images they would be the two that are currently in a Template:Multiple image template as the Myspace and Podcamp images. The intel images is the best image at showing what the everyday Justine looks like in the whole article. The first that I would chop would be the podcamp image because she does not often wear glasses. As I said earlier, she use to do videos linking her to many tech/internet brands and example is the Egg 2.0 video (I can not find the original egg video). I am going to remove the podcamp image because she just does not usually look like that, so the image is not really representing her.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Until the above issues are fixed, here are some more:
Both above makes it fail criteria 1(b) and possibily 1(c). But I'd suggest you fix the images problem first. If you don't want to fix them, then this discussion can be closed and the article can remain as B class.-- Tempest429 ( talk) 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak Do not list I could change my mind on this, but this GAR has been up for a while and the criteria 6 image concerns I have are not yet satisfied. I also believe the lead has a small problem as Tempest429 noted above.
Aaron north (
T/
C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Only remaining issue is Image:Intel_Insider_Kickoff_-_Justine_Ezarik.jpg still has nothing to do with the content it is placed with no. No mention of what an 'intel insider event' is.-- Tempest429 ( talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Relist The last picture has a purpose in the article, as do all the others. Diderot's dreams (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I am challenging the propriety of the Talk:Justine Ezarik/GA2 delisting decision that was supposedly based on WP:WIAGA 2c and 6b. The bulk of the disagreement was based on a disagreement on removal of images from the article. I requested an outside party give a third opinion on the issue. The following are the image issues
The basic argument against these images was that "If the images are not depicting anything very noteworthy in the subjects career/life, which is what it looks like, then they should probably be removed."
There is also a disagreement about WP:PRIMARY in terms of two elements of the article that only have primary sources. The reviewer feels that primary sources necessarily mean WP:OR.
These are the only two items that led to the delisting. I do not believe either is valid.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
How are they related to the internet? As a reader, I don't know what a 'New Media Expo 2008', 'myspace party', 'podcamp az' or 'Intel insider event' is. I don't know what they are because they are not mentioned in the text.-- Tempest429 ( talk) 21:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Recommend Overturn with encouragement to reconsider the number of images (see below) and to improve captioning (see below). The images themselves appear relevant to the topic, as per GAR.
In detail: I suspect that we need to distinguish clearly the questions of the relevance of the image to the topic, and the suitability of the captions. Referring back to the GAR standard: "every included image must be relevant to the topic, and must have a suitable caption. Purely decorative images, such as an image of a butterfly in a psychology article about emotions, should be removed." also, "A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article."
That way, all would link back to a point in the text (her eJustine persona, and her earning money through online promotional events and technology conferences respectively). Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
How is a portrait of the subject with her hands open, or holding a glass related to internet activities?-- Tempest429 ( talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm just looking at the two issues mentioned above and making a good-faith assumption that everything else satisfies the GA criteria. I cant vote for it yet as-is, but I think this is fixable. Aaron north ( T/ C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
1. Images - of the three images mentioned by Hchc2009, I am fine with the first 2, but not the 3rd. Given her "lifecasting" and youtube channels, an appearance speaking to an audience at podcamp and an appearance with a panel at the New Media Expo are both relevant. The other 4 images should be removed. We don't need more than one new media expo image, I don't understand why a face shot with a glass supposedly taken at a myspace party is relevant (what does she have to do with myspace re: the text?), and I have no clue why I am looking at her speaking at an intel insider event. What is she doing with intel? Looks decorative. Aaron north ( T/ C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2. OR - I do agree that a primary source can be used when a good secondary source can not be found, but it can only be used for data (where were you born, how old are you, what is your job, etc). Saying that there are two characters and describing what they look like can be fine if done carefully. Describing eJustine's behavior and speculating on her motivation requires an analysis of a primary source, and thus OR. I assume you can't find a reliable secondary source, so I believe this flaw can be easily cured by removing the bolded text in: (In a few of her YouTube videos, in addition to her common persona as iJustine, she played the role of an additional character eJustine, who acts as a sort of antagonist against protagonist iJustine.) The sentence following that is a bit iffy (subjective descriptions of "normal", "wild", "strange-looking"), but that is pretty minor compared to the OR in the preceding sentence. (incidentally now that I notice, is it permitted to bold a subject's alternative name or identifier outside the lead?) Also, now that I step back from this one little tree and look at the entire forest, is this silly side-story with ejustine even relevant? Due to source questions its inclusion is problematic anyway, I might recommend just removing that whole thing and be done with it. Aaron north ( T/ C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Since we are getting feedback on the photos as I had hoped in the original debate, I would like to understand why neither image with fellow internet personality Gary Vaynerchuk is considered relevant. I am removing the one with several unnamed subjects, but the The one with fellow internet personalities Vaynerchuk and Leo Laporte seems to represent something relevant. In fact, I am tweaking the image header to say the following: "New Media Expo 2008 images with internet personalities". Can I get some feedback.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with removing all of the eJusting stuff and have done so.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I am travelling and don't have time to fully respond to the Myspace and Intel images, but she is widely associated with many internet and technology brands. In some of her more notable early career highly-viewed youtube videos she did painted the logos of several dozen brands on easter eggs one year. I am travelling today and do not have time to discuss further. Will respond later tonight.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If I were to cut two images they would be the two that are currently in a Template:Multiple image template as the Myspace and Podcamp images. The intel images is the best image at showing what the everyday Justine looks like in the whole article. The first that I would chop would be the podcamp image because she does not often wear glasses. As I said earlier, she use to do videos linking her to many tech/internet brands and example is the Egg 2.0 video (I can not find the original egg video). I am going to remove the podcamp image because she just does not usually look like that, so the image is not really representing her.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Until the above issues are fixed, here are some more:
Both above makes it fail criteria 1(b) and possibily 1(c). But I'd suggest you fix the images problem first. If you don't want to fix them, then this discussion can be closed and the article can remain as B class.-- Tempest429 ( talk) 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak Do not list I could change my mind on this, but this GAR has been up for a while and the criteria 6 image concerns I have are not yet satisfied. I also believe the lead has a small problem as Tempest429 noted above.
Aaron north (
T/
C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Only remaining issue is Image:Intel_Insider_Kickoff_-_Justine_Ezarik.jpg still has nothing to do with the content it is placed with no. No mention of what an 'intel insider event' is.-- Tempest429 ( talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Relist The last picture has a purpose in the article, as do all the others. Diderot's dreams (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)