# Talk:Marie Osmond

Ms. Osmond deserves a better main article photo. How do we go about that? Please be nice; I'm new. Clarawolfe (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree.  - FlightTime (open channel) 21:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Images of living people on Wikipedia need to be freely licensed. If you are the copyright holder of a better image, I'm happy to help you release the image under such a license so it can be used on this page. I found a different image of Marie Osmond on Flickr that was freely licensed and used it on this page instead (but I'm not sure if it's better than the previous one). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, she said it so traumatized her that she felt she might be a lesbian at age nine. (rolls eyes) Whatever - she is on the record, although I haven't dug into the RS's about who she alleges abused her, but it should be in the article in some form under the Personal Life section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.59 (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC) 

@Modsquad3 indicated on Commons:Village pump/Copyright that they work for a celebrity [2] and their only Wikipedia edits are on this page. I am starting this discussion with hopes that they will come into compliance with WP:COI policies. -- William Graham talk 02:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi William Graham, I emailed Modsquad3 and she clarified that she is not being paid to edit the page. In this case "working for" does not indicate a fiscal relationship. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): Unpaid or not, working with or at the direction of the subject of the article is a COI issue. Payment is not my main concern. --William Graham talk 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not paid by Marie Osmond, her business, or anyone else to edit her page or any other page. I also am not working with or under the direction of Marie Osmond. I have not spoken with Marie Osmond about her Wikipedia page and have not received information or direction from her. I am working on factually updating her page & simply needed info on how to update a photo. I have a degree in print journalism & am interested in adding only updated, factual material that can be cited with proper references. I work 80+ hours a week at my fulltime job and work on editing this page as time allows. When finished with this page, I hope to work on other pages as time allows. When I stated I work for a celebrity, I simply meant that I am working on that person's page. Modsquad3 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marie Osmond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: ChrisTofu11961 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 03:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Good work as usual. Just a few minor touch-ups and we should be good to go.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

I moved a few things around to vary the sentence structure a bit more.
Watch for Oxford commas (I prefer to use them), slang terms like "spawned" and "took his life", and overlinking (John Schneider is linked multiple times, for instance). Go over it to make sure you got everything.
Even if a newspaper source uses all-caps for the headline, fix it to use normal caps.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
I added a source to verify her full legal name and DOB.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I think the article does a good job at giving equal weight to her musical and non-musical careers.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
I went through and added alt text. While this is not mandatory, I feel it's easy enough to do.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just do one more pass to make sure you got everything mentioned above, and I think we should be good.
@TenPoundHammer: Thanks for reviewing! I have not had enough time the last couple days, but should be able to go go through your edits tomorrow or early next week. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Think I got all the requests. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@ChrisTofu11961: Looks like you got everything. Just gave it one more run-through and it does indeed look good to pass. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer: Great thank you so much! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTofu11961: thank you for bringing the article to GA status. Do you know which edition of Behind the Smile by Osmond, Wilkie & Moore you used? Currently the article has thirteen references to a 2001 version and eight to a 2002 version, which generates {{sfn}} errors. TSventon (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Hi, thanks for catching this. I believe I mostly used the 2001 version. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)