Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:I'm putting the above message that was posted on PCs talk page here for reference. You both need to have a discussion here on the page's talk page about the issue. Both of you are also one revert away from violating the three revert rule, so please be aware of that. ] (]) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
:I'm putting the above message that was posted on PCs talk page here for reference. You both need to have a discussion here on the page's talk page about the issue. Both of you are also one revert away from violating the three revert rule, so please be aware of that. ] (]) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
::Since I was asked to review this situation, I'm concluding that ] is in fact correct in his assessment of the info box lead image being inappropriate. I don't follow or agree with there being an issue of shock value. However, the critical component of a good lead image is that it serves as a means of confirming the subject of the article. The artwork in front of the artist wholly obstructs the subject making it impossible to identify who is in fact holding up the piece of art. We, on behalf of the collective reader, might not even know whose art that is, much less do we have the ability to confirm who it holding it. As such, now that there is a consensus I am removing the image. The image can be added back to the article, just not in the infobox. Adding back the image again to the infobox without a changing consensus should henceforth be considered vandalism and acting in bad faith. ] (]) 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that sculptor Dan Lam was born in a refugee camp in Morong, Philippines?
ALT1:her work began to capture attention quickly. In 2016, her following on that platform grew rapidly from approximately 11,000 followers, to over 76,000, and included celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, an event which coincided with growing recognition in the art world of the importance of social media.
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline to a podcast, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ is needed here. Although this article meets the DYK criteria, I do not like the article style, which I think is too chatty. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Infobox image
Infobox image
Please stop inserting an image into the Dan Lam article that is against WP policies. The wishes of the subject of an article are irrelevant. The policy on main images is at MOS:LEADIMAGE and says "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". Biography articles have portrait images of the subject. Also see MOS:SHOCK which says "Lead images should be of least shock value". Also see WP:OWN which says "Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say." MB15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm putting the above message that was posted on PCs talk page here for reference. You both need to have a discussion here on the page's talk page about the issue. Both of you are also one revert away from violating the three revert rule, so please be aware of that. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Since I was asked to review this situation, I'm concluding that MB is in fact correct in his assessment of the info box lead image being inappropriate. I don't follow or agree with there being an issue of shock value. However, the critical component of a good lead image is that it serves as a means of confirming the subject of the article. The artwork in front of the artist wholly obstructs the subject making it impossible to identify who is in fact holding up the piece of art. We, on behalf of the collective reader, might not even know whose art that is, much less do we have the ability to confirm who it holding it. As such, now that there is a consensus I am removing the image. The image can be added back to the article, just not in the infobox. Adding back the image again to the infobox without a changing consensus should henceforth be considered vandalism and acting in bad faith. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline to a podcast, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ is needed here. Although this article meets the DYK criteria, I do not like the article style, which I think is too chatty. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
