Talk:Viktoria Modesta

Untitled
Since this article has been written it has been edited and rewritten by other various people. I dont understand the attatched tags on the article of it being conflict of interest and the other tags attatched. It seems not to be allowed to remove them despits the article being edited by someone anonymous and from a neutral point. When is someone gonna check it and remove them?


 * Well, I'm the only one that's really "rewritten" the article, but my edits in that regard did not deal with the issues the article is tagged for (and they are largely related). I'll start with the orphan tag.  A lot of people misunderstand its purpose.  An "orphaned" article is one where few or no other Wikipedia articles link to it.  It's often a good indicator of an article's subject not being notable.  The notability issue is also tied into the refimprove tag, which usually means the article doesn't have enough references to verify article content or the references don't really satisfy policies regarding reliability or significant coverage.  For example, the article often lists credits but backs them up with links to that company's website (i.e., primary sources, which don't establish notability) rather than appropriate secondary sources to verify the info and demonstrate notability.  The article needs "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"—and it does have some, but only from industry magazine sources.  Like with WP:PORNBIO criteria, sometimes industry coverage isn't enough.  Mainstream media coverage is always preferable.  Of course, that's not set in stone and maybe a little unfair for subjects that aren't likely to receive that kind of press, so rather than nominate the article for deletion (which I've considered) I just tagged it.  Yet again in relation to the subject's notability is that the article was created by you (presumably the subject herself), and as WP:COI says: If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article.  So if you had to create your own article... that could be problematic.  You can read the main policy regarding that.  It includes talking about issues with verifiability and neutrality, both of which have been or still are issues here.  In other words, this article is sort of a great example of an autobio with coverage/verifiability/notability issues.  Questions?    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 19:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly it wasnt the ideal way to get the article started i agree. Any following changes following first edits have been made by my management who manages this account. I am more than happy to have someone look at it and re write it presuming it stays true. If you were editing the article then perhaps you could explain what exactly doesnt fit with the usual format as it seems to be very similar to other articles about other similar personas interms of structure and tone. How do you suggest this article gets fixed? This article needs a solution what solution do you propose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktoria Modesta (talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Its now-acceptable structure and tone is what I rewrote the article to achieve. The "fixing" that needs to be done is more secondary sources (published media talking about the subject/you) and less primary sources, in order to establish article content as encyclopedic.  But you're sort of digging the hole deeper here.  You openly admit the article was created for promotional purposes, which is highly against Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia articles aren't meant to fill a gap in available information; they're meant to summarize in an encyclopedic manner information that is already available.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 13:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article isnt for promotional purposes at all, why does anyone have a wikepedia file on them? Wikipedia is a summarized version of what is already available of true and confirmed information as you mentioned above so i see nothing wrong with the article. All videos and, photos and information has been published in one way or other interviews and online. My bad for creating the original article, but i cant see a further problem with the article and dont think i can do anything else apart from accept the situation.

Amputation
"In 2007, she had a voluntary, below-the-knee leg amputation to improve her mobility and safeguard her future health. Her physicality has become known for challenging the modern perception of altered beauty."


 * Could someone explain how an amputation can improve mobility and safeguard health? I know there's a reference, but it doesn't make any sense so it needs explaining.
 * Matter of fact - the current source does not appear to refer to anything other than her having no leg. The answer to your question though is obvious and this is nothing unheard of - depending on what the health issue was the leg might have been paralyzed, misshapen, painful or otherwise, which would mean she could not really use the leg for its natural function, had to be careful not injure it etc. in such case without a leg all these issues go away and person's mobility is improved as they can now use a prosthetic, which they can control better than they could their natural limb 46.109.248.118 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is This Article Necessary?
Is this person of enough note to warrant an entire article about them? 86.162.243.29 (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article easily meets the requirements of the WP:Notability rules, so yes this person is notable enough. Roger (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"In 2012 Moskalova is working as a with producer and DJ Adamski set to be in 3Step genre."

This sentence should really be corrected. She is working as a what? Singer? Songwriter? Cook?

Also, the part saying "set to be in 3Step genre" makes no sense at all.

--2601:8:A900:824:CCD9:7A20:3FD5:E56B (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

British singer
I do understand her fluency in English language as well her music is in English, however, if she born in Latvia, then why doesn't article say something like "She is Latvian native British singer" or something else around those lines? --93.177.216.193 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * She may have been born in Latvia, but if she holds British citizenship and identifies as British, then there is no reason she should not be considered a British Singer -- Cgeorge1122 (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Naming in text
It appears that the subject of this article goes by "Modesta" in nearly every aspect of her life, however the article refers to her using her birth surname throughout. It would seem like we should be using the name of her common parlance in the article rather than the unused one. After all, we don't refer to "Mr. Sumner" throughout Sting's entry. -- DBalling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Viktoria Modesta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121028013313/http://i-donline.com/2012/04/i-n-conversation-viktoria-modesta/ to http://i-donline.com/2012/04/i-n-conversation-viktoria-modesta/
 * Added tag to https://medium.com/@medialab/announcing-the-2015-mit-media-lab-director-s-fellows-52e1afca08ab/MIT
 * Added tag to http://www.viktoriamodesta.com/news/2012/9/8/the-times.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130403041645/http://viktoriamodesta.com:80/news/2012/9/19/look-magazine.html to http://www.viktoriamodesta.com/news/2012/9/19/look-magazine.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Gender Identity
She/her or they/them? The article uses both and would flow better and alleviate reader confusion with consistency. If there is a reason for the back and forth, a bit of clarification would be helpful. Cheers. 2A00:23C5:331F:1101:E5F2:ACE2:B467:8287 (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)