Talk:Judy Garland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Changed the Seconal level in article

I changed th\\e 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)

"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)

Archive

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

Overdose

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

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

Because she overdosed, she broke one of the Ten Commandments. --PJ Pete

... What? Religion has nothing to do with this. Even if it did, her death is officially accidental. Grow up. Sailorknightwing 04:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Subpages (2)

Moved all additional information - Honors, Tributes, Collectibles, etc. - to a subpage, renamed the subsection 'See Also' to Supplemental Information. --Ozgod 05:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you now go to Judy Garland Honors and include some summary information (maybe, the whole lead from this article?) in the lead section? Each article needs to independantly cover a topic, and assert notability. Some people might say that Judy Garland's Honors in themself are not inherently notable, and if she recieved that many then maybe only a summary of them is encyclopedic.

An alternative would be to leave the list in this article, using hide/show navigation like in this article here or here (the show/hide bits).

Garrie 06:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to provide a click here link to each of the 2 supplimental pages similar to the return to main article link that is helpful to move between pages. I beleive the honors and other information (image in popular culture) although (very extensive) is relevant to to the subject and very useful to users - it is comprehensive information and overall demonstrates exactly why the lady is so famous - because of this extensive detail I think the article is one of the best of its type providing many aspects for users to follow-up on or leads for further research which is why Wikipedia is so useful - more so than the average encyclopedia. To reduce or delete accurate information that editors have provided in good faith and that is referenced or verifiable would defeat the purpose of wikipedia. However I do beleive that all info should be concise and comply with Wiki rules. The sub pages also allow for additional photographs. 81.99.65.220 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem is, Wikipedia doesn't currently utilise sub-pages in article space. What it supports, is self-standing articles which are independently complete, regarding notable topics which are well referenced.

If I had problems with the notabilty of Judy Garland, then I would have taken the article to AfD (It is an article, not a sub-page). I haven't, I've expressed an area where I think the second page needs improvement to be better aligned with policies and guidelines in place here.

I don't think using expanding tables would reduce the amount or detail of information included in any way. But I do think it would achieve what has been attempted in moving some information to a new article, while making effective and efficient use of screen real estate for those readers who are not interested in all the pop-culture references to this particular celebrity.

Deleting information, in the interests of continual improvement of the encyclopedia, is an inherent component of the purpose of wikipedia. As is discussing the deletion first, if it may be controvertial.

Garrie 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Carnegie Hall

Is it an event worthy enough of its own article? --Ozgod 05:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Judy at Carnegie Hall already exists, and should perhaps be expanded. I see no urgent reason to have separate articles for the performance and the recording. Cleduc 05:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with the Death section?

I don't really see how it's relevant at all. Why is it about the summarised life of a pilot? Anwenx 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon?

Shouldn't her importance to queer culture have it's own section?

It should be in one of the subpages, if I recall correctly. --Ozgod 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it belongs under the heading of Popular Culture - it used to be in the body of the main article but was removed and never re-instatd - The section does have significance to the overall impact of Garland on all aspects of culture in general but also MUST be factual and referenced as in the past the section had the tendancy to promote POV and non-referenced statments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.255.180 (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

That is bizzarre. I remember the section and I do not recall letting something like that slip by me. I could have sworn it was in tact when I split the additional information into subpages. --Ozgod 11:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe there is no reference to Stonewall. I didn't edit it in because I thought it can't possibly be an oversight, and I don't want to get into an edit war with some ***. You wikipedians sort this out. --87.162.45.101 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Joey Luft article redirects here anyway

I removed the link from his reference. --Jmeden2000 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I failed this article on failure to meet criteria two, references. This article is rife with, in most sections, including the intro, unsourced statements (the ancestry section is a particularly glaring one, but it's all over). I think that with the proper references accompanying them, this article would be nicely written and would qualify for GA. DoomsDay349 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there could be more references cited in this article as the information is well documented in many sources - However the Ancestry section does have references mainly to the Gerald Frank and Rita Piro books which provide the best sources of (detailed) family information relating to Garland's ancestors and their respective origins. I am not sure that a reference after every fact is necessary when the main reference is provided at the end of the section? I do beleive that as it is - it is a GA but accept that it could be better and references would help do this as this is the key factor to GAs but also think that this article comes under a bit more scrutiny than others that are not of the same standard but yet are classified as GA mostly because they are not as "popular" a subject and therefore escape the constant reviews and edits that this article attracts which is a positive aspect but is also negative in that it is subject to wider (frequent) analysis.Vono 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

A trivia section has been added to this article. I beleive that Triva sections are useless information and often un-verifiable - if the "Triva" is factual and important it belongs in the body of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopidia meant for factual data. A trivia section for this article will make it longer and result in endless silly entries (see Liza Minnelli article)) considering the popularity of the subject and her wit. A link to Wikiquotes seems to have been lost but is relevant to the article. Other articles with Trivia sections are criticised for this teh Judy Garland article is too good for this type of crap - If it is important that she was in 10 movies with Mickey Rooney it belongs somewhere in the article, the fact that she was named 8th Greatest Female Star by AFI is trivia but perhaps belongs with the Honors supplemental information. 86.12.255.180 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the trivia section should be removed. Indeed, these sections are not well received by Wikipedia but not forbidden because it may happen that it's too hard to insert a 'note' in the article. In this case, saying she has done 10 movies with Rooney can very easily be written directly in the article. -- Lyverbe 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA Review

I failed this article because it did not use full citations for most of the article's references. For example: citations 2, 14-18, and 21-22 to name a few, should be converted to {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite map}}, and/or {{cite journal}}. In the Ancestry section, "(reference: The Golden Years by Rita Piro)" should be a citation. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

Additionally, the intro should be expanded to two or three paragraphs to better summarize the article. The copyrighted images also need detailed fair use rationales to justify their use on the page. Look to other passed GAs for examples. --Nehrams2020 05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gay Icon

This section already appears as a section of a sub-article - putting it here is duplication. The section of Garland as a gay Icon according to previous discussions belongs on the sub-article page titled Judy Garland Honors that listed in the 'see also' section. That sub-article carries the details and useful information about Garland in "Popular Culture", I think that this Gay Icon section is more appropriate in that sub-article where it already is and that article currently named Judy Garland Honors should be renamed to Judy Garland in Popular Culture to reflect its contents more appropriately, of course Honors should remain included in the article as they are an important facet of the entire 'celebrity' and the phenominal legacy that she has left. In addition to add this section back into the main article defeats the original purpose of seperating the areas to reduce the size of the main article that should remain as it was as it covers the facts of her life. 86.12.248.114 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth Name vs Stage Name

Frances Ethel Gumm the little girl from Minnesotta who became the international star known as Judy Garland officially and legally changed her name from Frances Ethel Gumm to Judy Garland in 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.248.114 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"earliest paternal ancestor" ???

The article states:

"Her earliest paternal ancestor was George Marable (1631–1683), who . . .."

Um, hold on a second. How did Mr. Marable come into being -- parthenogenesis ???Daqu (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think it was parthenogenesis (lol) but you are correct the wording should be changed. George Marable was perhaps her first recorded or documented ancestor in America - However the parents of George Marable from Kent England and their parents etc are also documentable; given this the family can be easily traced further back in England.Vono (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)