Talk:More Demi Moore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article More Demi Moore has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 23, 2008.
March 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] 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)

What am I missing? Prudery. Pinkville (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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).[4]

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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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)

[edit] 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"YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • although not necessarily as nude as Moore. - use "naked" here, as it is more quantifiable in the sentence and less repetitive.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The photograph is one of the top magazine covers of all time, - hmm, tricky "top" is a challenge here, "highly regarded" or "influential"?YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • and it is one of Leibovitz' most famous photos - "and it is one of Leibovitz' best known works" maybeYesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • with an accompanying book also titled Annie Leibovitz Photographs 1970-1990 (ISBN 0060166088, HarperCollins, 1991). - a bit jarring. Why not "accompanying book of the same name" and put complete book plus isbn in inline ref?YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:38, 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
  • Leibovitz' open and direct' portrayal led to divided opinions. - replace bolded bit with "candid" as it is more succinct and descibes scenario better.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • was prideful yet low key and understated in a "anti-Hollywood, anti-glitz" manner bolded bit redundant - low key=understated. prideful?? --> proud, bold, brave....?YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fifteen years later the photo continued to be parodied. In 2006, graffiti artist Banksy used... - could be combined somehow in one sentence.

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)

[edit] Spears in Japan, world significance, etc.

What was the "Britney Spears episode in Japan"?

Incidentally, I (mostly in Japan, as it happens) had never heard of this photo till I first encountered this WP article. I don't suppose this means all that much, as I've never been much interested in Leibovitz's photos and I've only been vaguely aware of Demi Moore. (I did see part of the ghastly Ghost, but it bored me and I turned it off halfway.) I'm puzzled and amused by all this talk of the societal impact of this photo -- ah, the inscrutable occidentals!

A couple of weeks ago, a friend and I had some free time on a rainy London evening, read in Time Out that the National Portrait Gallery was open late, and without any particularly high hopes went to see a Vanity Fair portrait exhibition there. There were half a dozen or so superb images (all monochrome), a lot of pleasant images (mostly in monochrome), and a lot of entirely forgettable stuff (mostly in color). The exhibition was expensive and inexplicably crowded with people who seemed impressed. The two of us left early, but not before we'd noticed this photo. So "OR" says it has actually been exhibited in a British national gallery; the catalogue of the exhibition will no doubt confirm this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)