Talk:Celebrity Studies

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a study published in the journal Celebrity Studies examined Pippa Middleton's buttocks using Marxist and Freudian analyses? Source: The Guardian
  • ALT1: ... that a special edition in the journal Celebrity Studies was devoted entirely to Canadian actor Keanu Reeves? Source: Vox
  • Reviewed: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Leo_Posada

Created by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk). Self-nominated at 03:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC).

• Oh, that Middleton hook is a gem - predicting major page hits for that one :) I will complete the review for this a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, first issue, with regard to the alt - the source only says the journal issued a "call for papers" for a special edition on Reeves, it doesn't confirm that the edition was ever published. Gatoclass (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Gatoclass. I was a bit confused on how Vox worded that. We can see here that the special edition was indeed created. But the hook can be modified to read: ... that the journal Celebrity Studies issued a call for papers for a special edition devoted entirely to Canadian actor Keanu Reeves? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks, but since you have a source to verify that the special edition was published, all you need to do is add it to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Done.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Copyvio detector is down at the moment so just waiting for that to return. Update: passed the plagiarism check. Both hooks verified, ALT0 is a certified quirky. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I always knew pop culture had a bent for astronomy... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Buttocks

Theleekycauldron and Gatoclass: I hope that you noticed that Abrahams is not a science writer, he's the editor of the science humor publication {{Annals of Improbable Research]]... Similarly, his column in The Guardian is intended as humor. With this sourcing, I doubt it should have been promoted for DYK. Randykitty (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Randykitty. Thank you for your assistance on the article so far. While the The Guardian article has a humorous tone, it accurately summarizes the study. And, it was published in The Guardian's research section (not it's opinion/column section). If Abrahams made an inaccurate statement, The Guardian's fact-checkers would have caught it. But I do hope you realize that The Guardian is only one source that supports the hook. The Times Higher Education and The Times also wrote about the buttocks study and these sources are cited right next to The Guardian's article (the Marxist/Freudian one specified in the hook). Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and the Guardian article itself includes a direct link to the published study. Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Celebrity Studies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 02:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Great work here. Just some copy tweaks (MOS:INOROUT trips you up a fair bit) and this will be ready. 7-day hold to Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Copy changes

Lead

• in the last couple of decades I wonder if there's something more durable for the lead.
• the reality television series, RuPaul's Drag Race Remove this comma *and* the word "the". The show isn't inessential information that can be placed into an appositive. If I read an article that said "Journal issues have been devoted to David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Keanu Reeves, and the reality television series", I'd ask which one.
• brought in a network of international media, film, and television scholars together This is kind of a fluffy line. If it's worth keeping, remove "in".

History

• who in 2006, published a review of recent debates about celebrity Complete the appositive by adding a comma after "who".
• In the inaugural issue of the journal, the co-editors note that "noted", use past tense
• Such a task of "uncovering and analyzing the systems and structures" of celebrity, lies at the Remove unneeded comma
• that celebrity studies was "more central to understanding the everyday than maths, English or science." This happens quite a few times: you're quoting a fragment of a sentence, so quotation mark before period. See MOS:INOROUT.
• was titled: "Avatar Obama in the Age of Liquid Celebrity." No need for the colon (also another INOROUT issue).
• Graeme Turner, Professor of Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland, was featured in the invitation-only first issue of the journal where Add a comma after "journal"
• Additionally, Turner issued a challenge to other academics that celebrity studies scholars do more than contribute to the "discursive regime surrounding celebrity," and instead A comma you don't need. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences (CinS)
• Holmes and Redmond attribute ... Additionally, the editors believe I'd use past tense here.

Notable studies

• titled, "And Bringing Up the Rear: Pippa Middleton, Her Derrière and Celebrity." No need for the title (also another INOROUT issue).
• McCabe wrote that "The, maybe wrote, "The?
• under the headline: "Meghan accused of dropping feminism like a hot potato." No colon, INOROUT
• Clancy and Yelin criticized the headline as "problematically inaccurate" and Yelin later appeared You need a comma after "problematically inaccurate", outside the quotes (CinS).

Sourcing and spot checks

Earwig's highest number, a 37.1% to the Guardian article about the Pippa Middleton buttocks study, is mostly a cited quote as well as the title of the work. Indeed, journal article titles tend to skew up the results. I don't have issues.

Nine sources of the 92 were selected for spot checks.

• 7: The volume of celebrity studies scholarship led to Holmes and Redmond (2006) review of recent debates about celebrity, which examined celebrity culture across a wide range of media and contexts. The expansion of celebrity studies continued with the launch of the journal Celebrity Studies in 2010 Y
• 17: Can't access.
• 23: The first was the establishment of an academic journal entitled, simply, Celebrity Studies and dedicated to exploring the ongoing relevance of celebrity to a number of academic disciplines, from literary studies to sociology to political science. Y
• 24: Edited by a highbrow panel of 15 editors based at universities in the UK and overseas Wonder if this might be reworded a bit? I almost thought they had an editorial board of 30. Y
• 48: Shortlisting of journal for ALPSP award. Y
• 72: While the body of The Sunday Times article represented our work reasonably well, the title ‘Academics accuse Meghan Markle of dropping feminism like a hot potato’ proved problematically inaccurate Y
• 76: Can't access.
• 79: That it is possible to publish national material in an international journal is evidenced by Brent McDonald and Daniel Eagles’ (2012) examination of Australian diver Matthew Mitcham as a gay sporting icon citing an article titled "Matthew Mitcham: the narrative of a gay sporting icon" Y
• 83: Can't access.

Other items

• The cover art has a valid NFUR. All of the other items are appropriately licensed. I wonder about the visual value of File:Study on Keanu Reeves.pdf. Images need alt text.

Fixes

Hi @Sammi Brie: Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I agree with many of your suggestions. I will implement them as soon as I can. Best, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC).

Lead

• in the last couple of decades -- Changed a bit
• the reality television series, RuPaul's Drag Race -- Fixed
• brought in a network of international media, film, and television scholars together -- You're right, I removed this line. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

History

• who in 2006, published a review of recent debates about celebrity -- Fixed
• In the inaugural issue of the journal, the co-editors note that -- Fixed
• In the inaugural issue of the journal, the co-editors note that -- Fixed
• that celebrity studies was "more central to understanding the everyday than maths, English or science." -- Fixed
• was titled: "Avatar Obama in the Age of Liquid Celebrity." --Fixed
• Graeme Turner, Professor of Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland, was featured in the invitation-only first issue of the journal where --Fixed
• Additionally, Turner issued a challenge to other academics that celebrity studies scholars do more than contribute to the "discursive regime surrounding celebrity," and instead --Fixed
• Holmes and Redmond attribute ... Additionally, the editors believe --Fixed Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC).

Notable studies

• titled, "And Bringing Up the Rear: Pippa Middleton, Her Derrière and Celebrity." --Fixed
• McCabe wrote that "The --Fixed
• under the headline: "Meghan accused of dropping feminism like a hot potato."--Fixed
• Clancy and Yelin criticized the headline as "problematically inaccurate" and Yelin later appeared --Fixed

Sources

• Edited by a highbrow panel of 15 editors based at universities in the UK and overseas --Fixed (I think?)

Other items

• Alt text included for all images.

@Sammi Brie: All done! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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.