Talk:Katie Hopkins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Katie Hopkins was a Arts good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: June 8, 2008 |
|
|
Katie Hopkins was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 13, 2007 |
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
Katie Hopkins has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | |||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | |||||||
|
||||||||
 |
The The Apprentice UK WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to The Apprentice UK, and Katie Hopkins has been identified as one of these articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was 'Keep'. |
[edit] Note
Just to say that this article is in its VERY EARLY STAGES and is being expanded as we speak. Please do not link this from any articles YET. Thanks, happy editing. Dalejenkins 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling
Doesn't anyone check spelling on here? "Seperated"????
[edit] Article
I seriously question whether Hopkins is worthy of an article to herself - Should this not simply be incorporated into the Apprentice series 3 article? Or has someone done this on her behalf as part of an effort to launch her as a brand, because that's what it smells like?
Worth of an article - yes, probably. Worthy of quite as much as was in there when I saw it today, no. A full run down on every affair someone has ever supposedly had is not really appropriate even with article links for all of them. I have cleaned it up to a more encyclopedic entry - who she is, why she's famous, why she's controversial. It's MUCH easier to read now and still keeps in all the important bits as well as plenty of links to gossip for those who are interested. 85.211.140.130 18:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It's got out of hand again - this person doesn't warrant an article (IMHO) but if she has to, then this is many time too long. Can someone remove the crap and keep it removed? --C Hawke 12:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. There's far too much rubbish from the News of the World and other tabloid newspapers here. It reads like a gossip column, not some kind of serious biography. It really needs condensing and pruning down. I don't know who is leading this article, but the quality of information within is really suspect and full of a lot of tabloid crap that isn't necessarily true even if sourced. Can someone please get it sorted? 88.104.202.193 12:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Made some grammatical corrections. Skyclown 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
She, if you can call her a person, does 'deserve' an article because of how controversial she was in the programme. Plus this is also about personal stuff to which has nothing to do with the apprentice. Lots of people will come on to wikipedia (as they know it as a good biography website) and type in Katie Hopkins more than any other apprentice candidate.
- I also belive that the article needs expanding too. As you can see from the Apprentice template she is one of the notable candidates from the series. Pafcool2 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
On the apprentice:you're hired. Sir Alan said that if he has seen all those bad things she said about the contestants during the course of the show she would have been fired a long time ago
[edit] Katie's Current Job
If anyone wants to take a look at this article and go to pages 7/8, there is an article of what Katie is doing now, which tellingly reveals that Katie "joined the met office in late 2006 to head up its climate change consultancy service" - ie., shortly after The Apprentice finished filming:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/barometer/barometer6.pdf
Add it into the main body of the article if you think it relevent, though I also question whether she is worthy of a page to herself. It is at least a better source than Sunday Mirror, Tabloid speculation and gossip. 88.104.213.104 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that there's no referece to katie in the PDF above, but a whole article on her in this HTML version retrieved from Google: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:v86w3E3_prcJ:www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/barometer/barometer6.pdf+joined+the+met+office+in+late+2006+to+head+up+its+climate+change+consultancy+service&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2 Looks like they've already airbrushed her out of their history. --88.111.54.115 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right and all!! She was a two page spread with pictures when I published that link just a few days ago, and now the article has been deleted and the whole document altered! Whoah! Conspiracy theories or what? What did she do to deserve that? 88.104.135.223 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fired from Met Office
Katie has been fired from her job at the Met Office.... can somone add it to the article?
Also they have denied she was earning 90K. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6743877.stm --88.111.54.115 11:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
no-one ever said they paid her £90K - that was what she was supposed to be earning prior to filming, the met office job was got post filming--C Hawke 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My recent edits; RE: Katie's romance
There has been discussion as to whether or not this section should be included. The reasons that I find it acceptable for the article is that a large part of Katie's "appeal", if you will", is her various romantice relations. These have been well documented in the press and other media, especially in The Apprentice Episode 11, where Katie said "The most ruthless thing i've ever done is take someone else's husband because I wanted him". You could compare Katie to Russell Brand. Also, the recent pictures of Katie having sex outdoors has raised he public profile considerably.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT trying to turn the article into a gossip rag. If you feel that the wording or phrasing is too extreme, please go ahead and make those more than necessary changes.
On the other hand, not ALL of the infomation needs to be moved. Paragraphs about the births of Katie's children are very important, but I feel that the relationships are important also.
Thanks, please post here if you have any views or queries. Dalejenkins 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No-one is saying that the "Katie Brand" should not be included in the article. Her relationships have been well-documented, but the point is that we don't really need to include all of them word-for-word in the article, no matter how well-sourced. It just seems to go ON and ON and ON. There must be some way of condensing the article down to who she is, why she's famous and touch on the controversies without going too far into the realm of the tabloids. It needs to be a lot more objective. For example, a whole sentence says that she met work collegue Mark Cross at Exeter Train Station on 25th May and went to a pub. Do we really need to know all that extra info? Can't we just say that Katie was pictured in the national press making love to a married work colleague in a field and leave it at that without reporting all the extra stuff from the tabloids? I just can't help feeling the whole thing can be trimmed a bit 88.104.247.154 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] noteable?
Does this woman really pass the notability test? Sparkyboi 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this woman really deserve such a long page of info, she's only a contestant from a reality show after all!
I must agree with the above comments, this entry reads like a love-letter to a woman determined that we take her at her own - much inflated - estimation. I am will add it to my watch list so that I can follow this burgeoning affair.
--MJB 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contentants on reality shows are what pass for celebrity these days. Jooler 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
but SEVENTY TWO references? When the wikipedia guidelines specifically say not to include this sort of tabloid trash?
-
- I agree with the users above. I'm tempted to nominate this article for deletion. She is only famous because of her appearance on The Apprentice. She has become a media darling, but has done nothing remotely notable outside that show to merit her own article. All reality television stars feature in the press, but they are only given their own page on Wikipedia if they go on to sustain a media career. If she does go on to have her a media career outside tabloid interviews, then she may merit her own article. Until then this article should be merged and redirected to the Apprentice page.Legalbeaver 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There are now 81 references! Certainly Wikipedia likes citations, but I found the article almost difficult to read in places due to the high number of them. Hogyn Lleol 09:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The article is trash and nonsense, but no one seems willing to stand up to the rabid fans willing to copy and paste every single tabloid article ever written about her into it... 85.211.75.49 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] GA review comments
I'm concerned over the notability of the subject of this article. However, despite that (and until someone feels strongly enough to take it to AFD), here are my comments I have after reviewing the article against the WP:GA criteria.
- No fair use rationale for the screenshots. I'm not really sure they would qualify under fair use anyway as they seem to be purely illustrative.
- While not absolutely essential for GA, the citations need to be checked for positioning against WP:CITE.
- Poor grammar - the prose doesn't read that fluently, e.g. "It was at university which she....", "It is here that she met ..." etc.
- WP:MOS should be followed for date formats.
- Too many short paragraphs, makes reading a bit too choppy.
The Rambling Man 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit
 |
This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in September 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
|
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kaul.JPG
Image:Kaul.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Katiehopkinsvmichellemone.JPG
Image:Katiehopkinsvmichellemone.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Katie Apprentice.JPG
Image:Katie Apprentice.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Katie Hopkins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I am reviewing this article - details comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are my detailed comments.
In reviewing this article my standpoint has been that, for better or worse, Katie Hopkins is of sufficient note or notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article, and that the normal GA criteria should be applied.
The standard of prose remains well below that expected of a good article. The general tone is often unencyclopedic and "magaziney", and presentation is frequently slipshod. Here are some examples of what I mean.
- Prose: There are many poorly worded and/or punctuated sentences. Samples follow – there are plenty more:-
- "It is only after, contrary to popular belief, that she met fellow co-worker Paul Collins…"
- "Although these comments might have been offensive to some, she insisted in her You're Fired Show, that it was only in the name of comedy, and suggested she 'just needed to vent a bit'"
- "Reports originally suggested that the couple romped in the attic of the house in which the candidates were living, however Callagahan vehemently denied this".
- "Hopkins wrote a column for the Express and Echo newspaper in Exeter, much to the criticism of its readers, but was eventually asked to leave after a poll was put onto the publication's website asking if she should continue with the post".
- The word "whilst" also appears.
- Tone: Expressions like "dumped", "took up a job", "Met Office", and the frequent references to her as "Katie" (and a reference to her one-time lover as "Damien") are not suitable for an encyclopaedia, nor is a sentence ending "dependent on your opinion". The general tone is that of a gossipy magazine column, without encylopedic objectivity; the presentation of Ms Hopkins is almost uniformly negative.
- Slipshod - again, examples:-
- The article says: "After filming The Apprentice Hopkins took a job with the Met Office in Exeter." Citation [2] takes us to an on-line article that makes it clear she was working for the Met Office in January 2006. So either The Apprentice was filmed before January 2006, or the statement in the article is wrong.
- She appeared "in", not "on", the third series of The Apprentice
- It would surely have been possible to have included dates for such events as her time at Exeter University, her time at RMA Sandhurst, and her Big Brother pilot, since these events are all cited to sources.
- The Apprentice is sometimes italicized in the article, sometimes not
- The magazine is Heat, not "heat".
Part of the problem with the article is the number of contributors, some of whom are clearly better with words than others. Nothing can be done about that, until Ms Hopkins’s notoriety abates somewhat and more stability is achieved. Also, far too many references are to sources that an encyclopaedia would not judge reliable (blogs, tabloid gossip). [38] is broken; [69] seems to have been put in for its obscenity value rather than its relevance to the article. Also, the "I’m a Celebrity" image lacks a fair use rationale.
I think at present the article is very far removed from GA status, with inconsistent prose quality, questionable sources and lack of objectivity as its chief flaws. I'm sorry, but I don't think that these are short term issues that can be fixed quickly. A summary of this review is as follows:
- Prose quality: Fail
- Accurate and verifiable: Fail
- Breadth of coverage: Pass
- Neutral: Marginal
- Stability: Marginal/fail
- Images: Marginal
Overall: Fail
Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
