Talk:Judy Garland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
More information about this article... A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Biography WikiProject.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

A Wikipedian removed Judy Garland from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: July 26, 2006

Archives Old Talk

Contents 1 Changed the Seconal level in article 2 "Can only sing for nothing" 3 Archive 4 Overdose 5 Subpage 6 Assessment tag

[edit] Changed the Seconal level in article

I changed the amount of Seconal found in her blood, to correspond with a reliable newspaper source. The amount stated before I changed it was 4.9 mg, and a capsule of Seconal contains 100 mg., so that was obviously inaccurate. After searching several archives, I found an article that gave the dosage as 15 grains, or approximately 1000mg (thus, 10 capsules, a fatal dose). That makes a lot more sense. Jeffpw 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Can only sing for nothing"

I'm not sure where this would fit in the structure of the article, but I think it would be worth a mention: James Mason's wife Pamela Mason apparently remarked during the making of A Star is Born, "Judy can only sing for nothing". Oscar Levant expands on this, "At parties, Judy could sing all night, endlessly… but when it came time to appear on a movie set, she just wouldn't show up. - Oscar Levant, The Unimportance of Being Oscar, Pocket Books 1969 (reprint of G.P. Putnam 1968), p. 35. ISBN 0-671-77104-3.

Anyway, I won't be watchlisting this; if someone can use this, great. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Archived all the old talk since the page was getting... enormous. --Ozgod 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overdose

If Judy Garland overdosed, who did she disobey? --PJ Pete

What do you mean by 'disobey'? --Ozgod 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage

Would it best to create subpages for the lists of all Judy's films, recordings, biographies, etc? --Ozgod 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think so. As things now stand, the filmography, discography and list of concerts (for which there should also be a subpage made) take up half the article space. My suggestion is to create subpages, then write a paragraph or three about her biggest concerts/albums/films, with a link to the main article (which could just be a list, if you wish). Jeffpw 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree that sub-pages are appropriate as long as they are well linked and easily accessed. I think the article is an excellent one in that it touches all aspects of Garland's life and career demonstrating clearly why she is considered a great star and legend but more importantly it provides the reader or researcher with many strands of evidence to further investigate aspects of her life as well as clearly highlighting the legacy or lasting power that she has as a celebrity through the detail provided i.e. if someone is as famous as Garland; it is helpful to see the evidence through categories such as image/art/photography that help direct readers to other related information and people. It would be a shame to loose this. It is also good that the article has minimal POV statements (there are still a few remaining) The facts of her accomplishments stand for themselves without having to add POV embelishments. I think the article has the potential to be a GA and/or a featured article through more edits. The citations and references are good but not standard throughout all areas. I also have to point out that there are articles listed as GA that in my opinion are not as comprehensive or well written as this one is now and that this article due to the nature of the subject draws more attention and criticism than perhaps biographies of lesser known or revered individuals that perhaps "slip" through the full wiki policy application that seem to be enforced more robustly for this article. In any event it reflects alot of hard work and a lot of dedication.81.99.65.220 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have relocated all of her additional information (filmography, discography, etc) into a singular subpage. It too will need fleshing out. It may be more appropriate to go into detail there of specific concerts, films, etc. that should not, or cannot, be covered in the main article. --Ozgod 11:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment tag

I have changed this back to B. As I have stated elsewhere on this page, and also on its peer review and on Ozgod's talk page when it was improperly listed as a FAC, it has far too many problems to be listed as more than a B at this time. Creating the subpages, as was mentioned immediately above on this page, would be a good first step; however, the main guardian of this article, Ozgod, doesn't seem responsive to suggestions made as to improvements. I've offered on more than one occasion to help improve things, and have given lists of suggestions, but lost interest when I got no response. Jeffpw 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, as a non-assessor and a worker on this article you can't change assessment grade once an independent party has assessed the article. Second, according to the scale. For example, Fidel Castro is an A article, but one section lacks cleanup. In B articles, original research occurs as well as lack of citations. For the time being, I changed the assessment to back A. If you have any questions, leave a note on Jreferee, Mocko13, and/or Ozgod's talk page. Cheers! Real96 08:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to get into a revert war with you, but would point you to the criterion for A class articles. Do you honestly feel this article meets those criterion? I would also ask you what you mean by your opening sentence. I have assessed many articles for both the Biography project as well as the LGBT Project (though I note that anybody may assess articles at any class other than GA or FA. Please point me to policy that says otherwise if you know better). Further, I note that the majority of your edits are made using a script. I would suggest, especially given that you are a relatively new user, that you slow down and perhaps actually read the articles you are assessing. Not only would that make for more accurate assessments, but you might actually increase your base of knowledge. I would also suggest that you review policies here. There should never be original research done in a Wikipedia article. That is not a guideline. It is POLICY. If you are assessing articles as "B" without reverting original research, you are doing this project a disservice. In the meantime, I will be asking for outside opinions on this rating. Inaccurate ratings not only lead to confusion within the project, but poorly assessed high ratings give an impression of to the casual reader that Wikipedia doesn't really care about the quality of its work. Jeffpw 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is certainly not of A-class quality. To list only some of the problems with this article:

• The method for referencing is not consistent. Sometimes in-line references are used, in other places direct external links are used.
• There are far too many lists in this article. And they don't adhere to this guideline.
• The Honors section is a collection of stub sections.
• The pictures are copyrighted. No fair use rationale is given. As it is, it wouldn't even pass GA.

I'm going to change it back to B-class. Errabee 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Errabee. I don't like edit warring, so was going to take this to the ProjectBiography talkpages for a more accurate assessment. I'll keep a watch out on this to make sure the page remains properly tagged. Jeffpw 09:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I was going to keep this article unassessed until an independent person (such as Errabee) would have assessed the article properly. However, I think it was not in the appropriate manner for you to change the assessment Jeff, since you are not on the assessment committee. Real96 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please be civil with your comments towards me, Jeff. Also, I use a script to assess the articles. However, I still use fair judgment. Real96 09:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you hadn't kept it unassessed. You reverted my edit and changed it back to "A". And for the record, I was not aware I was being uncivil. If you feel I was, I apologize for the unintended insult. However, the thrust of my comments remains unchanged. There is no assessment committee. ANYONE may assess an article. Perhaps another policy guideline you should read here is WP:OWN. Jeffpw 09:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken note of your suggestions, Jeff, and have been bit by bit been trying to work on it - although, if you have read my talk page and archives, I have been pretty much waist deep in helping the WPBiography so have not really had the time to focus my energies on the Judy Garland page. At the moment I am on vacation until the 25th, so when I return I should be more active, although I am a little shocked you would take the approach I was ignoring your comments when you could look at the article and see that I de-linked many of the red listed articles, which is one of the many, minor technical points brought up. --Ozgod 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I was about to leave the article unassessed, but at the time last night, I had edit conflicts here and on my userpage. Thanks. Real96 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)