This article is of interest to 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, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's History and related articles 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.
Why were the 1900 and 1910 CENSUSES removed from the reference sheet???????? Any valid reason for that? Those prove her actual birth year, and her family members' names.Stutzey (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Done for HOH, but TGD doesn't have a Wikipedia article and there were several WG theatres in NYC. Which theatre Tashman worked is not known from the sources. I altered the sentence to eliminate any reference to the WG. Perhaps research in the future will settle the question. SoniaSyle (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:Overlinking, do you think it materially adds to the article to link to all the "year in films" links? (I removed some other obvious links, like to "model". In general, words and places that a reader of English would be expected to know should not have wikilinks.)
There are some quotes that do not have citations. e.g.
'In the Photoplay article, "How to Hold a Husband/Wife in Hollywood", the two gave readers a tantalizing glimpse of their married life: Lowe: "I like elegance. There's always a delicate odor of sachet about my shirts and handkerchiefs. Lilyan puts it there." Tashman: "A woman can easily learn how to make herself attractive, how to make her home attractive."'
Also, the Photoplay article is not in the references.
The following paragraph is unreferenced:
"Tashman and Lowe maintained their acting careers while leading separate lives. They were touted in Photoplay as having "the ideal marriage". They entertained lavishly in a Beverly HillsArt Deco home believed to have been designed by Tashman. Her wardrobe cost $1,000,000 and women around the world clamored for copies of her hats, gowns, and jewelry. Servants were ordered to serve her cats high tea and for Easter brunch she had her dining room painted dark blue to provide a contrast to her blonde hair. She once painted her Malibu home red and white, asked her guests to wear red and white, and even dyed the toilet paper red and white."
Also, do Beverly HillsArt Deco have to be linked? It is especially bad to have two links next to each other in the text.
I like to link locations. Dropped Art Deco. SoniaSyle (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
In the "Death section, is "rubbernecks" an encyclopedic word?
Probably not, but I like it. :) Anyway, changed to "curious onlookers".
There are two fair use photos in the article. Can they be justified as necessary to the understanding of the article? Two is rather a lot for such an article, especially since neither of them are of the subject of the article.
Deleted without damage to the article. SoniaSyle (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
In general, the article is well written and interesting. I did a little copy editing and may do a little more. Feel free to revert any errors I introduce.
I don't think "jollied" is an encyclopedic word as used here.
My dictionary says: "to engage in good-natured banter; to put or try to put in good humor especially to gain an end". The word has been in use since 1610. I can't think of a better word for this instance. SoniaSyle (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The Filmography section is confusing. Could you lay it out like the one in Norma Talmadge or Greta Garbo? It would make easier to evaluate her year-by-year productivity.
I want to accomplish this but it may take days or even weeks. SoniaSyle (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What are the titles in parentheses after the dates in Filmography?
I don't know. I didn't compile the filmography. It was present when I took the article on and I didn't want to delete it. I never noticed the title sin parentheses. I suspect they're alternate titles. foreign release titles, working titles; or re-release titles. Will look for info on this.SoniaSyle (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, with such a productive "Professional life", should the "Personal life" section seem longer? Was she more known for her personal than her professional life?
Though she made many films (most obviously forgettable), she was a secondary player and not a focus for critics and film historians. At this late day, there is not much material about her career. She was apparently well known (and perhaps better known) for her personal life. Her lesbian antics were well known in Hollywood and women around the world wanted copies of her gowns and jewels. From my research she was indeed better known for her personal life. Though she made many films, most appear to be undistinguished - they are not on best film lists, they won no awards (nor did she), only a few have articles at Wikipedia, and even fewer have been released to DVD. I would venture to say that today her personal life is of more interest than her professional life and her lesbianism of more interest to readers than her forgettable films.
Perhaps you could add more detail about her professional life, like why she was fired from Madame Pierre. There needs to be more about her professional life.
This is desirable but sources are scant. She was not a major star but a competent secondary player whose career was cut short by death at an age when most performers are just taking off. I have found nothing on why she was fired. Perhaps the producer wanted his new girlfriend in the role? Who knows at this late date. I'll take another look but I'm not optimistic. It was 80 years ago. SoniaSyle (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The emphasis on her personal life gives the article a gossipy tone.
Context. The milieu in which she existed and moved. Lesbian Hollywood of the 1920s is of great interest to readers today. Toned it down a bit though. Take a look. SoniaSyle (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Some sections, such as "Personal life", have too many one and two sentence paragraphs. This makes for a choppy read.
The article is much improved. However, the word "jollied" is a deal breaker for me, as it makes light of the facts of Tashman's life and is not encyclopedic in tone. Just because a word has been used since 1610 does not mean it is an appropriate word for an encyclopedia. Xtzou(Talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Took care of this! Looks better! I'm going to start the filmography. This going to take a bit.SoniaSyle (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that (removing "jollied"). The word bothered me! Xtzou(Talk) 21:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What does "negan a relationship" mean? I don't know the work "negan". Thanks, Xtzou(Talk) 23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment on "Filmography"
I believe these should be listed in reversed order, i.e. starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent.
I am going to have to fail this article, as no editing has taken place since May 24. It has been on hold since May 15 and progress seems to have stopped. Please renominate the article when you get the Filmography straightened out. Currently, there is a half-finished table, and a list with the films entered in reverse order.
I really appreciate some of you taking the 1910 and 1920 Censuses from the reference list. Those documents are more valid than anything that is listed under the citation list. Way to go!Stutzey (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)