Talk:Frederique van der Wal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

In context the meaning is clear enough--voluptuous--but it there actually a word "untwiggish". And if there isn't should it be removed?

I see now. Un-twiggish after Twiggy, the waif like British model of the 1960's whom FVDW in no way (or shape) (or form) resemblesMeb53 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just stupid and un-wikipedish, I'd say. Or un-anythingish? 82.141.118.38 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

married or single??????--70.243.74.252 (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From article[edit]

Note left in article: Question: Can any woman, five-foot-ten, who weighs 102 lbs., walk under her own power? No way. Moreover, anyone weighing 102 lbs. and wearing a size 8 would have to be about 4 foot 2 inches. Error patrol? - David Gerard (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is/was heavier than many runway models. 112 is still far too low for her weight. She likely weighed a still slim 125 lbs or so similar to Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer and other "curvier" models of the 80s/90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.55.134 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not impressed[edit]

Why is there a sentence above the introductory section telling us her name is really van der Wal, not Wal? I see this article has improved somewhat over the years, but the references are pretty sparse; just the model's website? This strikes me all as pretty crappy.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article or Advertisement?[edit]

I wonder if someone more seasoned can chime in to clean up or properly source all of these claims in this article. I really do not see this person as being noteworthy enough to have what appears to be a large resume on Wikipedia that basically serves as an extension to the boasts from her own personal web site. Can web sites be used to reference so many attributes? Conspirasee1 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seconded! additionally, half the information mentioned cannot be found in the sources that have been cited. frederique's own websites being mentioned as references (sources 5, 6, and 7) also completely throws the credibility of the information for a toss. Moonlit witch (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frederique van der Wal. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederique_van_der_Wal&oldid=1207996847"