Jump to content

Talk:No Lifeguard on Duty

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 21 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 12 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 12 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Books}}, {{WikiProject Fashion}}, {{WikiProject Human rights}}, {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject Media}}, {{WikiProject Popular Culture}}, {{WikiProject Sexuality}}, {{WikiProject Sociology}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Women artists}}, {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleNo Lifeguard on Duty has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 1, 2005Articles for deletionRedirected
March 17, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

[edit]

This article had a successful GA Review and was promoted to WP:GA quality. Review at subpage Talk:No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First supermodel?

[edit]

The Wiki article on Janice says: While Dickinson claims to have coined the term supermodel in 1979, and to be the first "supermodel", the word already was known in the 1940s. The writer Judith Cass used the term in 1942 in her Chicago Tribune article "Super Models are Signed for Fashion Show". In 1943, author Clyde Matthew Dessner used the term in his book So You Want to Be a Model! - along with 4 cites.

I think we should disallow this claim, not exactly big-deal anyway. Valetude (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede too long

[edit]

Seeing that the lede was taking up more than 20% of the total word-count, I deleted most of it, since it largely duplicated what was in the article, instead of summarising it. Harizotoh9 has seen fit to revert me for no reason that I can see. I won't start an edit-war yet, but I think an explanation is due. I would suggest 5-6% is a reasonable proportion for the lede. Valetude (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]