Talk:Lucy Salani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Bruxton (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by KamillaŚ (talk). Nominated by WanderingWanda (talk) at 16:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lucy Salani; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is newly expanded (March 25) and is definitely long enough (11,000+). It adheres to the wikipedia policy. The hook is brief and to the point, and it cites Il Post, which is a proper news publisher. The content of the hook is interesting enough. I've checked through this user's history of edits, and it is indeed their first DYK nomination.

The only question I will raise is whether there should be a link for Nazi concentration camps in the hook. I am not a wikipedia wizard, so an extra set of eyes here is very much welcome, but this concern does not affect the readiness of this article. Great work! TheLonelyPather (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLonelyPather: I added a link to the opening phrase while helping translate the article, so I think it can be useful in order to provide context. Oltrepier (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLonelyPather: the lack of links was an intentional bit of rebellion on my part, as I think the bevy of links at DYK might hurt, rather than help with, reader engagment. Still, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a link to Nazi concentration camps (or transgender, or whatever else) being added. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I don't think DYK's rules strictly enforces what wikilinks to add, so I will let you the nominator decide. TheLonelyPather (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLonelyPather and WanderingWanda: So, is this nomination ready to get promoted? Oltrepier (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Oltrepier: I think it is ready, since User:WanderingWanda has not modified the hook. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added only "known" to the hook because these kind of hooks get scrutiny. I also wikilinked Nazi concentration camps. Bruxton (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Very nice job on the article. Keep up the good work.

Onel5969 TT me 11:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I'd like some more opinions about the picture which was recently removed from the article, due to WP:NOR and WP:BLP concerns. I've never seen an original illustration on a biographical article before, but I have seen them for other articles (Seedfeeder famously made a bunch of x-rated illustrations for sexual articles, for example). I thought the picture was nice and a clever way to get around the lack of a photograph, so I was a bit disappointed to see it removed, and I'm not sure I agree that it violates policy. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture looks good to me. We have featured artwork by wiki editors on the main page and obviously there is no BLP issue here. Victuallers (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also read the NOR stuff "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas ...". So thats it. Victuallers (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "it" at all. Of course these "ideas" are unpublished. What, precisely, is the source for the drawing? Is it invented wholecloth by the artist? If so, that's the definition of original research. I don't see any info alongside the drawing that would lead me (or any reader) to reasonably conclude that this is a likeness of this individual vs any of any multitude of middle-aged white women. -- Veggies (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said "thats it" because the guidelines quoted do not apply. Obviously claiming BLP when the person is not alive is clearly stretching the guidance. As for the idea that the sketch contains unpublished ideas then that holds no weight. The sketch doesnt contain a "new idea" e.g. a missing eye. When the guideline says "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research" then it was implicit that the image was not perfect ... just that the image did not "introduce new ideas" - IMO it doesn't. If you can see "a new idea" and not a perceived imperfection then that would be grounds for considering your view. The idea of likeness is subjective. I agree with you that is does look like a white middle aged women .... we agree, that is a likeness. Both of us are "readers" and that likeness is something we can both "reasonably conclude". I think you are arguing that you don't like it and that we should not have sketches in articles or that creating an image is de facto original research. If this were true then we would need to delete every image on Wikicommons made before the invention of photography! Now your argument about the source does have some traction. I have written to the artist for more confirmation. Victuallers (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP policy covers recently deceased people. This person died, what, a week ago? I think that about qualifies. As for sketches ipso facto not containing unpublished ideas, that's risible at best. The policy clearly states that It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light. Are you trying to argue that taking a photo, then photoshopping it to distort the individual is discouraged—but doodling a person's likeness out of nothing is perfectly within the spirit and bounds of the guideline? Please! We're not talking about utilitarian sketches like technical drawings. We're talking about the choices that the artist intentionally made in portraying this person. For what it's worth, I don't even think the sketch looks like this person (based on photographs of them) at all. It should be removed on the caricature-quality alone, not to mention the problematic sourcing issues. As for your absurd point that "we would need to delete every image on Wikicommons made before the invention of photography", you're making my point for me. There's a reason that Wikipedia preferentially features photographs of people and objects over sketches when it comes to post-1880 subjects. Photography is intrinsically the more accurate, less subjective medium—not as dependent on the conscious/subconscious decisions of the artist. Obviously, if we had a photograph of, say, Pope Paschal I, we would use it rather than his supposed likeness in a mosaic. Also, his mosaic was not created by a Wikipedia user just to be uploaded to Commons. It was commissioned and accepted in its time and it's what we have. -- Veggies (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

It literally says in the article that the subject chose to keep her name "Luciano". So, why is the article titled Lucy Salani? Isn't it Wikipedia policy to use someone's preferred name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.115.6.23 (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Salani&oldid=1210183920"