Talk:Petra Collins

Notability points after deprod
I considered Collins Notable before creating the article for the following reasons from Wiki:Bio and Wiki:Bio "Creative Professionals":


 * Multiple established secondary sources:, , , , , etc.


 * The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. Major contributor to a number of established photo magazines.


 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Voted in Top 30 best up and coming young photographers in Canada.NickCochrane (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually there are only two secondary sources -the rest are primary or not substantial. Not sure of her contributions, the support for this is her website - lacks independence and I do not see her work has become a significant monument.  red dog six  (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The website merely lists the work, with links to the independent content. Should I go through the independent links and place them in? NickCochrane (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead
Hi User:CaffeinAddict Can we discuss the lead? You just reverted my edit - I added the line about controversial depictions of the female body because the lead should explain why the person is notable and I thought that point is clearly what makes her interesting. I feel the existing lead diminishes the article by not showcasing what is notable. Also the grammar needs copyediting in any case - a person cannot be a 'portraiture' and in many articles she is described as an artist - perhaps portrait artist or portrait photographer, if that is accurate - I hadn't seen that description in the sources. What do you think? I'm interested to generally improve this article up to wikipedia standards, am slowly reformatting the references - hope we can work together. Cheers, Depthdiver (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia standards say that the lead should be a summary of the article, so perhaps you're right, I just found " She is known for controversial depictions of the female body." as being too much of a possible POV statement, and that for further reading, those "controversies" can be read right in the body of the article (some would say they are controversies, others would say they aren't, as if to say some see her work as controversial where Collins herself doesn't understand why people are offended by her art). I would suspect those coming to the page are looking to read about her work as well as the recent instagram and AA press she's been getting, so I don't see it as inaccessible. I just found the wording very strange. She's also known simply for her "photography", which never had any controversy attached to it. Those are just my thoughts. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I can see your point - funny enough, i chose that wording trying to be NPOV, e.g. not mentioning the details, while still indicating that she has provoked some considerable attention and debate through her work (unusual at this very early point in her career). For me, in the sources she is clearly interested in provoking discussion about cultural standards and norms - it is what makes her notable for me.  Can you think of better way to describe it?   Depthdiver (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to look at other contemporaries that would provide a precedent however people like Annie Leibovitz and Terry Richardson have similarly bare leads where Collins' mentor Richard Kern has a more in depth look at his work (however he was a prominent force in the cinema of transgression and other 80s movements). CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Those comparisons are helpful - I guess it is a style issue - but I really like WP:LEAD because many people do not get further than the lead, so I would hope to interest the reader to go further into the article - unless it is a topic so famous that it needs no introduction. Maybe we can find other wording that frames the controversy better, and positions it in the context of her other achievements? Depthdiver (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)