Talk:The Honest Body Project

Conflict of Interest

It was suggested to post on the talk page to discuss the page further. NatalieRMcCain (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC) NatalieRMcCain (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm the person who tagged the COI, spotting the clear connection with the username. I'm noting the COI as officially "declared", as Natalie did nothing to hide it, and has openly and freely acknowledged it without any issues. Murph9000 (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have appealed for help on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Conflict of Interest help required for The Honest Body Project, hoping to find someone there with experience of conflict of interest cases, and the right background and interests to properly and fairly evaluate your article. Now it's a case of waiting to see if someone volunteers their efforts. Murph9000 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Also posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Conflict of Interest help required for The Honest Body Project. Murph9000 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate your help! NatalieRMcCain (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. I can't promise what the results and eventual outcome will be, but I've tried to give your article a good and fair chance of success. Best of luck with it. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. You can also use the Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is a resource aimed particularly at providing new editors with a friendly place to get help and get their questions answered. Murph9000 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have much experience with dealing with conflict of interest, but I have extensive experience dealing with photography-related articles. I'm going to address any issues one by one so as to see what can be improved. NatalieRMcCain, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. However it is preferred that people not write articles about themselves or their own projects, generally if a person or project has reached notability then it is assumed someone unrelated will write an article about it or them. Potentially one could be objective enough in writing such an article that would be acceptable. I would like to point out to begin with that the lead section does not explain why this project is notable – what makes it a significant contribution to its field, or why has it achieved significant attention? This is something that the lead section should communicate. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Lopifalko. Natalie, please feel free to provide any comments or feedback on the changes, or suggestions to address any concerns raised. While you can't unduly influence the article, your continued input on the talk page is most welcome. Murph9000 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Should I add more to the article explaining the notability? I don't want to edit it further unless it's okay to do so. Thank you for helping Lopifalko I really appreciate it. I can explain the significant attention, notability, etc if it is acceptable that I continue to edit it. I don't want to make anything worse with the COI. NatalieRMcCain (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just explain here on the talk page, thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Lopifalko and Murph9000!

what makes it a significant contribution to its field? The project has been well received in the media and been given so much attention because it is helping women to love their bodies. (The article from the independent has a quote about this-"The 'Honest Body' project is helping mums love their changing bodies" article:http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-honest-body-project-is-helping-mums-love-their-changing-bodies--WJlQZEYcZNl ) Women are used to seeing photoshopped images that further promote an unhealthy body image and make women feel bad about themselves. The project aims to show women that all bodies are beautiful, and this is something that isn't typically seen in the media. The stories provided with the portraits are also things that aren't typically spoken about on a large scale, such as postpartum depression, stillborn births, extended breastfeeding, etc. and the project gives these women a voice to share the stories to help other women with similar experiences. A quote from one of the Today articles that I like is this: "In beautiful portraits, Natalie McCain explores real women's bodies, stripped down to show stretch marks, scars and curves. She tells their stories through the lens of her camera in the popular black-and-white photo series, The Honest Body Project."

I'm not sure if that helps for the lead part of the article or not. But basically, many women are struggling with body image issues and my project aims to fix that.

Thank you for all of your help!! NatalieRMcCain (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The part of your answer that I see as releveant to judging whether it has made a significant contribution to its field is "The project has been well received in the media and been given so much attention because it is helping women to love their bodies." Has it been well received and given so much attention by media that Wikipedia considers reliable sources? I don't think so, I'm not so sure, not at first glance but I need to spend more time weighing up those sources that are used before I want to call it – so far we have The Huffington Post, Today, Redbook, Mic, ABC News and The Independent – I need to check on the reliability of some of those).

Is the project "helping women to love their bodies"? Do any of these sources describe that it is helping (I don't know, I haven't read them all). You say "The article from the independent has a quote about this-"The 'Honest Body' project is helping mums love their changing bodies"" but what you quote is only the article's title, the article itself does not mention this, does not back up or elaborate upon the claim in the title.

The USA Today (a morning TV program) article says "beautiful portraits" and "popular". I'm not sure yet whether USA Today is considered a reliable source or not (we have to ask, is it a noted opinion on photography (or on whichever other field(s) this project relates to)? Can we trust it when it says "popular"?). I've tried but haven't yet found an answer whether it is considered reliable. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability and sources

See also: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Natalie has a list of media coverage on her website: http://thehonestbodyproject.com/?page_id=378

I'm not sure, but there might be something there that she has not already used, something useful in developing the article. Obviously any source listed there needs to be properly vetted as a reliable source.

Murph9000 (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Murph9000 for pointing that out, The Independent jumps out from that list as the worthwhile ref to use. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes I have two articles from The Independent. Is it okay to add them? I wasn't sure if I should continue to edit the page or not. I am happy to add them if it's acceptable that I continue to work on it. Thank you for helping! NatalieRMcCain (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie. You are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles. That's just for the specific article itself. You are quite welcome to make constructive contributions to any area of Wikipedia where your COI does not apply. You are also quite welcome to suggest or request changes here on the talk page. Such suggestions will likely be warmly received if they seem to maintain the neutral point of view that is required, and provide something useful and generally consistent with Wikipedia's content guidelines. So, simplest thing is to just drop any changes here on the talk page, optionally using the {{request edit}} tag for them. Just make sure you clearly identify both the existing thing to be changed, and what you are suggesting it be changed to (just the additional content is fine, if it's something new to add). Basically, for any person with a COI, Wikipedia is more than happy for them to have quite detailed input, as long as it's generally constructive and consistent with content guidelines. Not directly editing the article is largely about avoiding the appearance of introducing bias (as much as it is about avoiding introducing actual bias). Ideally any suggestions introducing completely new facts should be supported by a reliable source. Adding a new reliable source to existing content, you just need to identify the content and source for us. Murph9000 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Murph9000! Here are the two articles from Independent. This one is about the breastfeeding series: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/honest-body-project-mothers-show-they-are-proud-to-breastfeed-their-children-no-matter-how-old-they-10471003.html This one is about the project in general, and could go in the top section: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-honest-body-project-is-helping-mums-love-their-changing-bodies--WJlQZEYcZNl NatalieRMcCain (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Honestbody.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Honestbody.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)