Talk:Emily Lloyd

Emily Lloyd has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 29, 2018. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Emily Lloyd appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that at age 17, the English actress Emily Lloyd reportedly beat over 5,000 others, including Jodie Foster, for the lead role in the 1989 film Cookie?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Lloyd.

Wikipedia

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled[edit]

I am new and this is my first article. I don't know what i should change on my article to contribute to Wikipedia Melly42 13:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article looks fine! I see no issues with it; it's much better-written and more well-organised than many other articles by more experienced contributors. jglc | t | c 13:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I refer to your edit here [1]. I am well aware that as of 2017 the Daily Mail is generally considered unreliable and I have always previously avoided using this source. However, in this case the Daily Mail article is actually written by the actress in question. I note blogs are deemed notable on Wikipedia if the person who has written them has notability themselves. I see no reason why Emily Lloyd writing herself in the Daily Mail should be covered by a blanket ban on the site. She is unlikely to have sensationalised or fabricated slander about herself, or have poor-fact checking regarding her own life, reasons that were given for the Daily Mail being considered unreliable. The source is also not used for anything that is unduly self-serving or biased in her favour; she admits drug addiction in the article, among other things. Furthermore the article in question is from 2013, predating the point from which the source was generally considered unreliable. I've reverted the removal of content but I'm happy to discuss the matter further. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references to that source are potentially reasonable per your points; however, when we begin making claims related to and impacting other people who aren't the author, that becomes more problematic. I don't agree that the details about the sexual abuse – a potentially criminal accusation – or about the "troubled relationship" are appropriately cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's a good point. I've found better sources for those two points, and have attributed the claim that the relationship was troubled to Lloyd's assertion, rather than a solid fact. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emily Lloyd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up for review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

Does Emily Lloyd have a middle name? I am assuming not from the article, but I just wanted to ask to make sure.

I don't think she does. Her profiles at IMDb, AllMovie and BFI don't mention one.

For this part (for which she received critical acclaim and 'Best Acress' awards), I think you mean “Best Actress” instead of “Best Acress”.

Fixed.

There is "1986–2016" in the "Yeas active" parameter, which implies to me that she has retired. It is unclear in the body of the article if that is so?

I'll change it from 2016 till 'present'; I just assumed it would be more appropriate to list the last time she worked. I can see you point though.

Early life

I am confused by the following sentence (Hughes and Ball separated two months later.). Two months later from what? From their wedding? From the birth of Charlotte? The timeline is somewhat unclear here.

Clarified.

This is more of a clarification question for this sentence (Her father also re-married and had three sons: Hartley, Louis and Spencer.). Do you have any information on who the father married (i.e. name and occupation)? I understand if that information is not available, but I just wanted to double-check about it.

Expanded.

You mention in the infobox that she was born in London, but it is not mentioned in this section.

Added.

Film career

For this part (Lloyd received the 'Best actress' award from the National Society of Film Critics in 1987), I think that the word "Actress" should be capitalized.

Fixed.

I have a clarification question for this sentence (Her next role was in the 1990 film Chicago Joe and the Showgirl.). Did her performance receive any critical comments? Here is one example, where Roger Ebert says the following: “Emily Lloyd shows again, in only her fourth role, what a remarkable new talent she is. She's so completely relaxed on the screen, so natural and seductive in the way she gets him to do whatever she wants.”

Expanded. Thanks for finding that review.

The above comment applies to the other films mentioned in the section.

Expanded.

For this part (and spend the next six weeks in hospital), shouldn’t it be “spent” instead of “spend”?

Fixed.

For this part (Later in 1992 she had a supporting role in), there should be a comma between “1992” and “she”.

Fixed.

For this part (Shortly thereafter she was also diagnosed with Tourette syndrome), there should be a comma between “thereafter” and “she”.

Fixed.

In this part (The following year she starred in the film Riverworld.), there should be a comma between “year” and “she”.

Fixed.

Theatre career

Any critical commentary on her performances as Bella Kooling or Ophelia?

Later life

For this sentence (By this time Lloyd had lost contact), there should be a comma between “time” and “Lloyd”.

Fixed.

For this part (that while she did receive film offers she was focusing on getting better), there should be a comma between “offers and “she”.

Fixed.

Any critical commentary for No Reasons?

Personal life

I have two comments for this sentence (In October 2014, Lloyd had a daughter, Arrabelle, to her partner vocalist Christian Jupp.). I think it should be “with her partner” as opposed to “to her partner”, and I would add a comma between “partner” and “vocalist”.

Fixed.

Filmography

Everything looks good here.

Awards and nominations

Good work with this section.

References

Reference 31 does not go down to the “Bibliography” subsection like the other Lloyd book references do.

Fixed.

Final comments

You have done a wonderful job with this article. I have honestly never heard of this person before, but it was a very interesting (and very sad read). Once my comments are addressed, I will promote this as a GA. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

I will ✓ Pass this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picture[edit]

What is even in the picture of Emily Lloyd? 47.157.200.6 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...what does that even mean? There's nothing in the picture as there is no picture. If you're trying to ask why there isn't a picture, it's because nobody has uploaded a free image, and we wouldn't be able to use a fair use one since the subject is still alive. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]