Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hope Solo/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hope Solo[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Listed the initial GA nomination resulted in a fail due to the lack of discussion of Solo's sex symbol status. Consensus was formed here that the material mentioned in the "Magazines" section of the article is sufficient, especially considering that sex is not key to Solo's notability. Adabow (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article was failed based on a single subjective criteria (aka condition per WP:RGA) that is unsupported by any Wikipedia guideline. See "In popular culture" section of GA review for full detail. I am requesting that the article be re-assessed for Good article status. See WP:WIAGA for criteria and WP:RGA for guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the reviewer of the article and encouraged this GAR. In my failing statement I named WP:WIAGA 3a as my reason for failing so this is actually a challenge to WIAGA 3a rather than RGA as stated above. I named no personal criteria, but rather WIAGA 3a. I named this because, like it or not, Ms. Solo is a "sex symbol". The vast majority of sex symbol articles on WP have an enumeration of listings in which they were recognized for their appearance. This is a very sexist thing to many and may offend some. However, all sex symbols that I looked at at WP:FA (Angelina Jolie, Preity Zinta and Kareena Kapoor Khan) listed or highlighted such lists. The only athlete/sex symbol at GA/FA that has both google image results with prominent nude/semi-nude results and numerous sex appeal list rankings is Lauren Jackson which actually omits such a list. However, former GA Maria Sharapova has such a list. Many other notable athlete/sex symbols like Jennie Finch have such a list. My fail is merely based on my opinion that the article can not be comprehensive without informing the reader of her listings on various sex appeal lists since we have identified several and the article omits them. This is a very small issue in the overall biographical summary, but still constitutes an easily rectifiable omission, IMO. As such I continue to Support my original close. The arguments are more detailed with more examples in the original close.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a nice piece of work and needs not be diluted by an over-the-top obsession with the side issue that Solo may be considered subjectively as a "sex symbol". That's really incidental to her notability and is covered briefly already. The article does not fail WIAGA at all, it provides broad coverage without going into too much obsessive detail which seems to be what is being asked for here. So it should not have been failed on this singular issue. Please ensure the dab links are fixed... (Nike & Boys and Girls Club), and I'm happy to provide a more in-depth review. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gotten the dab links handled. Courcelles 13:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, I've made a couple of MoS changes, overall happy, time to promote the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promote - The material Tony's fixated upon would be toxic to the article. "In April 2012 Solo took 41st place in The 50 Hottest Tomboys in Sports, a picture blog compiled by Amber Lee, hosted at Bleacher Report."[1] Really? A whole paragraph of this would be out of place and frankly awful. In fact, it could perhaps lay claim to being the worst paragraph in Wikipedia history. I thought the review took a bizarre turn when Tony typed reams of stuff about other female athletes he obviously rates as 'lookers'. The consensus there was that it's all purely subjective and a clear imposition of personal criteria. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were women secondary sources rated as "lookers", who all had content in their articles clarifying this public opinion. They were not my personal looker ratings as suggested. I never said a whole paragraph. I think Solo has about two sentences worth of recognition that could go along with her Body Issue stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear the consensus is that the topic has been adequately covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentences? You dredged up loads of these trashy, search-engine-optimised photo blogs and demanded they be "adequately summarised"! Then you departed on a rambling stream of consciousness sojourn around selected other individuals. If all this is over two sentences, why bother? Can't you just write the sentences yourself and we can all move on? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promote. I think the "sex symbol" topic in question is handled adequately and tastefully as is, especially for GA standards. If the sole issue is the inclusion of rankings, I'll note that the Sharapova example's are buried in her Endorsements section, which uses publications of a vastly different league than those suggested for Hope's article. It would be undue weight to add much more than what has been said. Also on undue weight, please consider the time wasted on all of our parts by not coming to compromise on this small grievance days ago—let's let ties go to expediency. czar ♔ 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content that is included is tasteful. The content that is omitted could be handled as tastefully. In regards to not coming to a compromise, no one has proposed one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, this is more of a content dispute, better fit for a talk page discussion, and not something that precludes passing on GACR 3a, no? The compromise is that the article mentions the topic and that delving deeper can (optionally) happen after the GAN passes. czar ♔ 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My hope in this GAR is in fact that "the article mentions the topic" and I have no problem with a GAN pass if it does. I have not done a full review of the topic, but found some material. How would you propose that the article mention the topic?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct quote from Hope Solo, from the article: “I'm an athlete—that's all I am. If a sex symbol is now a top female athlete, I think that's pretty amazing and it shows how far our country has come from the stick-thin models, from what you see in most magazines.” I believe it is adequately addressed by the subject herself; why will the article make her what she says she is not. It is a good article. Harvardton (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her saying she is just an athlete reminds me of Basketball Hall of Famer Charles Barkley saying "I am not a role model".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your position is clear here Tony, time to step away and allow others to discuss your approach at this GA without fear of your badgering responses I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My position is not that she is like Charles Barkley, it is that 9 out of 10 sex symbol articles on WP include sex appeal list rankings. Why not Solo?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Other stuff exists. And what makes the other stuff, most of it fancruft, and fourteen-year-old bikini obsessives correct? You're on your own with this odd crusade, that much is clear. To withhold a GA on the basis of your own clear personal requirements with no underwriting in WIAGA (broad coverage, not too focused on a single detail.... ) somewhat undermines your position on Wikipedia I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hope Solo is a professional athlete with good looks. By wearing make-up, and appearing in a few modelling photo-shoots does not make her a symbol of anything else. People find her attractive does not make her a sex-symbol. The article has not omitted anything significant about her, and the article about her is the subject of discussion not some other individual. The omission is about some other article on the internet, not about her. Harvardton (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm involved in this article up to my eyeballs, but I think this is ready to pass as a GA. It covers the issues TonyTheTiger was concerned about at the review stage adequately, and since the GAN Hmlarson and myself have taken care of what referencing issues existed when this was nominated. Courcelles 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hope_Solo/1&oldid=1086350821"