Talk:Kimberley Garner
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
A new file approved
editHi all. This is just to note that the photograph File:Kimberley Garner.jpg has had its permission under a free license verified by OTRS. However, I will not add the image to the article, because there appears to be some disagreement over the correct photo to use. So, if there were to be any changes, could all editors kindly discuss which photo to be used here on the talk page first before making the change on the article, so as to avoid further conflict. The guidelines set out by MOS:IMAGES also need to be considered in the discussion. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Lead Image Needs to be updated to a recent coloured photo
editHi All,
I Would like to raise an issue with the current lead photo of Kimberley Garner.
This photo appears to be very outdated. An article's lead photo should best represent the topic or person in question. If you compare this photo to the hundreds of other photos of Kimberley that have been taken recently, you can notice that the lead picture is old and needs updating.
In Wikipedia guidelines Manual of Style/Images it states: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page".
I feel that an updated, coloured picture would give better visual confirmation to readers so they know they have arrived at the right page.
"Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate"
An updated image would better illustrate the person than an older image would.
"The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Unlike other content beyond the lead, the lead image should be chosen with these considerations in mind."
Kimberley Garner is a television personality, actress and socialite who has photographers taking pictures of her every day. You wouldn't expect to see an old photograph of her on Wikipedia, considering the large number of more recent pictures available.
David256256 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi All
I would like to agree with the previous post from David and say that the B&W image currently being used as the lead image for Kimberley Garner is inappropriate because it is an old photograph and doesn’t represent the type of images that you currently see being used extensively in the press. The recent coloured image is a better representation of how Kimberley currently looks and therefore would be better suited as the lead image. As this picture will be the first image that is seen it is important that it reflects accurately how the person looks and also being colour is visually more attractive. Kassie16 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Two users with just a single contribution to Wikipedia. This doesn't look phishy at all. Coderzombie (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
D.O.B.?
editWhich is the corrrect date of birth of Kimberley: 4 or 10 February 1991? - De Jaren (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)