Talk:Malika Louback

Did you know nomination

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 Wikipedia 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.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Malika Louback walks for Paco Rabanne in 2020

• ... that Djiboutian fashion model Malika Louback (pictured) has three engineering degrees? Source: https://vogue.sg/malika-louback-djiboutian-model-interview/ "But aside from her achievements in fashion, Louback is also an accomplished academic, with an impressive three degrees to her name: one in industrial maintenance, a bachelor’s degree in physics and another degree in material science engineering." (They actually got one slightly wrong, the first one is "DUT, Génie industriel et de maintenance" which is "industrial and maintenance engineering", not "industrial maintenance", but that's not important for purposes of the hook.)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Longacres

Moved to mainspace by GRuban (talk) and Trillfendi (talk). Nominated by GRuban (talk) at 19:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Could you do a quick review of the prose to make sure the sentences flow well? I also personally think the second photo is unnecessary for the article, since it's from the same event as the main infobox picture. Could this be removed or replaced with another image (especially one that doesn't alter the position of the references section)? Is there much more information available online about her? I feel like the article could really benefit from 1-2 more sources (but this is optional). Otherwise, everything looks good to go! Prosperosity (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• These are nice suggestions @Prosperosity: - but not a reason to hold up the nomination. You are permitted to improve the article, maybe best after its approved? Victuallers (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @GRuban and Prosperosity: hmm, this hook makes me a little uncomfortable. I think it's because there are two ways to read it—either it breaks the stereotype that fashion models are airheads, or it reinforces it by elevating Louback as an exception. I'm sure the nominators intended the second, but I wonder if there were a rephrase that could subtly discourage that first interpretation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You might have a point @Theleekycauldron: if it said one degree but three? That is impressive for anyone. Imagine: Indian astronaut has three biology degrees, US President has 3 degrees, Prince Charles is a fan of three degrees... let it go. Victuallers (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @Prosperosity: Sorry, I didn't get a ping or other notification, so didn't realize you had concerns - I think reviewers are encouraged to notify nominators. But as recompense I can address them in detail:
      • "review of the prose" - sorry, can't; as in physically unable to. See, I'm an engineer. That's a physical handicap, like being blind or lame: it leads to writing short, clipped, fact-dense sentences, with fact 1; fact 2; fact 3 (and occasional overuse of semicolons). Forsooth, verily it is said in scripture that when the engineer essayeth to scribe flowery, flowing, metaphor-rich poetical sentences, it becometh not as unto a thing of beauty but instead as ridiculous as the ape in courtiers' robes, or the elephant knitting whilst dancing the rhumba. (Though Imma shank any dawg who disrespect my vocabulary!) However, I recognize that is a handicap, and if you or someone else with a literature education can make the sentences flow, I'll be grateful!
      • "second photo is unnecessary" - I can agree that it is not strictly necessary as such, but still think it is helpful. I agree that an image from a different context would be preferable, but free images are not easy to find (I have some experience with this). There are two videos on Vimeo that are in theory marked free, but I am afraid of them: they're clearly marked Versace and Valentino, so I suspect they may be owned by the brands, rather than the Art Supervisor and Director that put them up. The Youtube video that I got the image from was officially released by Paco Rabanne, the brand. Anyway, I think for lack of an image from another context, the full length image does makes the article look better. However, that's, by definition, a matter of taste. If you really feel strongly about it, or someone else agrees with you, we can remove the image, but I'd prefer to leave it in.
      • "more information available online" - not that I could find, and I did look, et je peux lire un peu français. You'll notice in the article history that Trillfendi made the draft over a year ago and left it there, and Trillfendi does know what she is doing. That is an indicator that the Internet is not overflowing with information as such; there are plenty of articles, but articles about models tend to be 99% style, i.e., images, and "look at how she wears this today", and 1% substance i.e., actual text about her that could enhance an encyclopedia article. I'm fairly sure I got most of what there is there to get. She has also only been active for 2 years, and for half of one of which she was locked-down in Paris, which I do write about. She does meet the Wikipedia:General notability guideline but does not surpass it by leaps and bounds.
    • @Theleekycauldron: As Victuallers writes, I didn't intend to slight her, just point out that it is an unusual combination of professions, especially three degrees, not just one. Fashion model and fashion designer is fairly common, like singer and songwriter, and most orchestra conductors can play piano, and many politicians were originally lawyers, but three engineering degrees for a fashion model are rare. However, I can make alternative suggestions: how about
      • ALT1: "... that Malika Louback (pictured) earned three engineering degrees, inspired by her father, and became a fashion model, inspired by her mother?" https://vogue.sg/malika-louback-djiboutian-model-interview/ "As for fashion, what is your first memory? ... I loved to watch my mother get ready to go to work, to a wedding, or to other events like boat rides with my father. I would watch her choose her outfits, accessorize them, do her hair, and finish with a touch of perfume." https://en.vogue.me/fashion/model-malika-louback-loro-piana-interview/ "And I always wanted to be an engineer. Probably because I have been fascinated by the knowledge and reasoning abilities of my father ever since I was a child. He is also an engineer." Her mother, is, of course, not a fashion model but an NGO administrator and politician. But I guess she's a fashionable politician? Or
      • ALT2 : "... that Malika Louback (pictured) believes her three engineering degrees make her a better fashion model?" https://en.vogue.me/fashion/model-malika-louback-loro-piana-interview/ "My engineering experience helps me to be more attentive to detail in my job as a model." --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
        • @GRuban: okay, I like ALT2 a little better :) it'll need to be added into the article and cited inline.
          • @Theleekycauldron: I thought I did that: [1] Not good enough? --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
            • @GRuban: oops, yes, sorry! that works. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I like ALT2 better as well - let's go with this version. Have passed the DYK review. --Prosperosity (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

ALT2 to T:DYK/P7 without image