Talk:Lucy Salani

Feedback from New Page Review process
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.

 Onel 5969  TT me 11:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Picture
I'd like some more opinions about the 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 ( 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)
 * 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)
 * 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images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas ...".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)
 * 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 Of course these "ideas" are unpublished.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)
 * 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 As for the idea that the sketch contains unpublished ideas then that holds no weight.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)
 * 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&mdash;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&mdash;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)

Name
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)