Talk:Carolina Gynning/Archive 1

Tables
The tables in this article definitely need some attending-to. For example, there's a discography table and yet the article says nothing about her singing career, and the TV filmography being in two parts makes little sense - especially considering the "TV presenter" table isn't at all limited to her work as a presenter (in fact, none of the credits listed say she was a presenter/host). Heck, now that I look at it again, next to none of what that table lists is even notable. Guest appearances on talk shows? That's unencyclopedic and cruft-ish. Not to mention, tables in general are unnecessary when the content in them is so small (for example, the Films section). I'll clean it up a little later on if no one else does.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 04:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Peacockery/glorification/promo
I have removed a couple of "peacocky" errors in the article, but there seems to be a lot more to do here. What I removed was a) the description of her home as a mansion, i.e. per the common definition of it a home that is considerably larger than average and very luxurious, which isn't supported by the references given (or the images in those articles, for that matter), and b) the claim that she starred in a French movie, which isn't supported by the article here on en-WP about that movie, where she isn't even mentioned, or the poster for the movie, where she isn't listed, meaning that she couldn't possibly have starred in it (from what I have seen and heard she only had a very minor nude role in the movie, as one of several women "conquered" by the male star of the movie...). Thomas.W talk 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added to the claims about having had a 10 yr career as an international model since it's based only on her own autobiography. And much of the rest of the article, including what the article says about her being discovered and offered modelling jobs at 16, is based only on what she herself has claimed in the very frequent interviews she's given; meaning that very little of the article seems to be sourced to reliable third-party sources. The information found in the references has also been filtered, leaving out everything negative while amplifying everything positive. So I have sofar found no reason to change my first impression of the article, that it is more of a promo-piece than an encyclopaedic biography. Thomas.W talk 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)