Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vivien Leigh

Vivien Leigh[edit]

Self nomination. Biographical article on the noted British actress. I've expanded this considerably over the past few weeks, and have referenced everything. I think it's comprehensive and balanced, and I thank anyone who takes the time to consider it. Rossrs 05:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I nearly nominated this myself when I chanced upon the article a few days ago. It's thorough, balanced, and referenced. The writing and presentation are exceptional. Durova 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I agree with Durova. That is a great article. Forever young 07:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Contains an excess amount of fair use images and copyright status of Image:VivienLeigh1958.jpg (top) is inconsistent. It is claimed as both public domain and copyrighted, free use. If the copyright issues are worked out, I'll gladly support. Also, an online source is given but there is no direct URL or instructions about how to find the image.(vote changed by Superm401 | Talk 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)) Thorough, well-referenced, and unbiased. An excellent article. Superm401 | Talk 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Image:VivienLeigh1958.jpg is actually "copyrighted any purpose". User:Rossrs uploaded the file to en: even though it is (correctly) hosted at Commons. I'll be deleting the duplicate image here in a minute. I also added that direct link to the Commons image description. Jkelly 19:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the image Jkelly. I had a feeling it wasn't quite right but I wasn't sure how to fix it. Appreciate your help. Rossrs 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Five fair use images seems a reasonable number to me given the difficulty of obtaining free ones for the subject. Andrew Levine 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Free image really is free, and the Fair use rationales for the other images seem correctly-done. Referencing is good, article is well-written and comprehensive without delving into trivia. Substantially better than many existing WP:FAs. "Good job!" to all involved. Jkelly 19:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, the section "Theatre and film performances" is ridiculously short and doesn't fit there—it looks like an afterthought. Incorporate the content into the article, and put Vivien Leigh chronology of stage and film performances in a "see also" section if it can't be inserted anywhere else. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually intended to be a variation of a "see also" section so that the article would not be overwhelmed by the inclusion of a list of credits, as some articles are, and with a paragraph to place it into context. I agree it looked somewhat clumsy. It doesn't fit into the article itself, so is it ok now? Rossrs 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; well-written; great article. (Ibaranoff24 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Support. Gorgeous. Ambi 06:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]