Talk:Shatzi Weisberger

Drawing as lead image?
Should we really be using a drawing as the lead image here? I understand that this individual lacks a Commons picture, but usually in that case we just wouldn't include one. Here's a of Dilma Roussef by that same artist; even if we didn't have any copyright-free pictures of her, I wouldn't think to use it on her article. I suggest removing it or, alternatively, since this individual is diseased, a free use image hosted on Wikipedia could be used. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I'm not well-versed in this area, but when I go to upload a non-free (fair use) image of Weisberger and note that it's an image of a deceased person, the upload wizard asks me whether I've made a reasonable effort to get someone to release a photo under a free license. Because of that, and because I'd rather we have a free image than a pixelated little fair use one, I'll poke around and see if I can't find someone who is willing to upload a photo to Commons. — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it was just something that stood out to me as we don't normally use drawings of figures to depict them outside of, like, historical figures and the like. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes for article
I removed a little and added an expand tag for the career section, but keeping notes, for myself or anyone else:

Vaticidalprophet 05:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutralfy long hagiographic sections; don't take subject's description of events that everyone else describes differently at face value (e.g. leaving her family)
 * Sort out to the best of the source ability what actually went on with her upbringing (article currently seems confused as to who she was raised by, sources don't seem much less confused as to e.g. how long her parents were together, whether her mother's partner raised her, etc)
 * Massively restructure activism section, which amongst other things massively overrepresents the things that aged well and downplays the things that didn't (nuclear power opposition is barely mentioned even though she consistently mentions it as the single biggest deal in her 20th century activism); much of this section (and of the whole article) is not particularly independent, which is another problem
 * Restructure death section to not essentially be a repeat of the obits and the NYT article; the NYT article is a good source, but as it currently stands much of this is a repeat of the parts that reflect well on Weisberger, which makes the omission of the details that don't even more prominent