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 sourcedmust 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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Hi! I uploaded a new image for editors to consider for this article's infobox: File:Kelly_Rohrbach,_2015.jpg. The new image is more of a portrait photo, giving a clearer picture of Kelly Rohrbach's face.
Also, I ask if editors will consider removing image File:Kelly Rohrbach 2014.jpg from Kelly_Rohrbach#Filmography. Mrs. Rohrbach would prefer not to have that image so prominently represent her in her encyclopedic profile. While its best practice on Wikipedia to include an image in a biographical profile, I've not seen many where more than one image is included; it doesn't seem necessary here and could be seen as objectifying. Of course, this is up to the discretion of Wikipedia editors, but I hope editors might consider its removal.
Thanks for the image, Kevin. I did a quick image search, and think I can add a more specific date and place and event for it - is that edit correct? If not, please say. I also added it to the article infobox, per request, as it is likely a better image, due to looking at the camera (though the smile seems a bit crooked, to be honest).
However, I'm not going to replace the other image. You are quite right that due to being a swimwear image, out of context it could be seen as objectifying, but (from reading the article only, I know nothing about her otherwise) the article subject seems to be at least as notable for being a swimwear model (Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, no?), as for anything else, so seems to be an accurate depiction of the reason for her notability, so an appropriate illustration for this article.
The limited images you will see on other biography articles are:
partly a function of limited availability (for some subjects we simply can't find more free images)
partly a function of article size (if an article is too short, too many images overload it), and
partly a function of the article subject (if the subject is a writer or a soldier or a scientist, then what they look like isn't quite as important).
In this case, we have the images, the article is long enough to support more than one, and as an actress and model, what the subject looks like is quite important to her career, so I think we should keep the second image. Out of the ... maybe 70? ... articles I have mostly written myself, 3 relatively recent ones areaboutmodels, and I have tried to include multiple images in them for this reason. Thank you again. --GRuban (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I know! I can mark it "upright", which will make it a bit smaller; since it's vertical, making it the same width as the horizontal infobox image unduly dominates. Maybe that will help your concerns a little? --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]