Jump to content

Talk:Louise Franklin

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

Possible image

[edit]

As I find potential images to use for her infobox, I'll add them here. Here's the first I've found so far. SilverserenC 00:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another option. SilverserenC 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Unless I somehow find something better, I'm going with this, the most clear and honestly best photo I could have ever expected. SilverserenC 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Silver seren (talk) and FloridaArmy (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 19:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Louise Franklin; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice work. "1930's" and "50's" should be changed to "1930s", "1950s" etc. per MOS:DECADES, but I won't delay approval of this DYKN over this issue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose at this point it would be best to get a fresh review, with the focus being on ALT2. SilverserenC 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, Can this nomination be put back on the Template talk:Did you know page so a re-review can be done? SilverserenC 01:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, Silver seren!  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the Dayton sources with their info, thanks for those. As for the Binford banning, here's two other sources on that.
'Brewster's Millions' Is Banned By Binford
Collier's Provokes Argument In Rap At Movie Censors Here (For some reason, this page keeps redirecting to not available, so here's a link to the cropped image itself)
What were you thinking, RoySmith on how to fix all this? SilverserenC 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't have any specific suggestions. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - There were a few entries in the "Filmography" section that did not have sources. For example, the entire "TV series" subsection is unsourced, although it's pretty short, and some of the films are also unsourced. I missed this in the initial review; sorry about that.
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Just one issue that I forgot to check in the previous review, but otherwise ALT2 looks good to go. Regarding source–text integrity, I think that issue was specifically limited to the quote used for ALT0. I randomly selected a few sources from the remainder of the article, and they seemed to check out. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now, Epicgenius, I've removed all of the unreferenced films and the tv show. I'll add things back in as I find references for them. SilverserenC 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this is good to go, then. Epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]