Wikipedia

Talk:More Demi Moore

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Bojac5021 in topic How?
Learn more about this page
Good articleMore Demi Moore has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 23, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in More Demi Moore, Demi Moore appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair eight-months pregnant and wearing only a diamond ring?
Demi your still the most beautiful woman in the world

Um, really?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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

Background

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Auto peer review

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

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)Reply

GA notes

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

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" Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • 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? Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • 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

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)Reply

Spears in Japan, world significance, etc.

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on More Demi Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

How?

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Possible to actually send a message to Demi? Bojac5021 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:More_Demi_Moore&oldid=1207194462"