# Talk:Valerie Solanas

This review is transcluded from Talk:Valerie Solanas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of October 24, 2012, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is well written, with good structure.
2. Factually accurate?: A few issues here:
Early life = "Citation needed" tag, in 4th paragraph. This must needs be addressed promptly.
New York City and the Factory = "Citation needed" tag, in 3rd paragraph.
The shooting = Uncited paragraphs and sentences scattered throughout. Particularly 'quotations, quotes must have cites after them, even if this block of text is cited to the next appearing cite. Not just at end of paragraph, but also cites at end of each quote or at the very least each sentence where a quote appears.
The shooting - "Citation needed" tag, in 8th paragraph.
Solanas and Warhol = "Citation needed" tag, in 2nd paragraph.
3. Broad in coverage?: Good structure and flow throughout, however going forward for further improvements in quality after GA Review, I'd strongly suggest expanding some of the smaller subsections, as well as going for a peer review and soliciting input on WikiProject talkpages of relevant WikiProjects, and from the Guild of Copyeditors.
4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone, however, I'd suggest expanding the Trial subsection.
5. Article stability? Upon check of article edit history and talk page history, no big 'ole disputes, but a few recent changes in edit history, please stay on top of this.
6. Images?: 2 images from Wikimedia Commons check out okay. 2 images of the subject of the article, both hosted on Wikipedia claimed as fair-use = was any attempt made to get free-use licensed images of the subject?
A few issues above, let's see if hopefully they can be addressed soon.Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


### GA passed
GA passed, thanks for such great responsiveness on the article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and your patience. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The following source was listed at the end of the article, but never cited in it, so I am moving it here in case someone wants to go through it and see whether there's something in it to add to the article and cite to this source:

Lord, Catherine (2010). "Wonder waif meets super neuter". October. 132 (132): 135–136. doi:10.1162/octo.2010.132.1.135. S2CID 57566909.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing a school project and decided to edit this page, specifically discussing the fictionalized cult Valerie creates in American Horror Story: Cult. Would the show itself be considered a reliable source? If not, what would be a reliable one? EMB2006 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The article states In "I Believe", Reed sings [playing Andy Warhol's character], "I believe life's serious enough for retribution ... I believe being sick is no excuse. And I believe I would've pulled the switch on her myself."  I think a better interpretation is that Reed is singing as the narrator (ostensibly himself), not as Andy Warhol's character. The rest of the song refers to Warhol in the third person and even quotes him ("Where were you, you didn't come to see me?" Andy said, "I think I died, why didn't you come to see me?"). I'd like to remove "[playing Andy Warhol's character]". I'm not sure if it's ok for me to just go ahead and remove it or whether it needs discussion here first. SESteve (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is it that at every turn this article and other about her try to describe her works as parody. 
For instance in the later life and death section it describes how she was stalking and harassing various people including threatening to murder them, and experiencing extreme paranoia about the mob... and then says that the book she wrote about the conspiracy that had her imprisoned was "possibly intended as a parody" before going onto state that she was interviewed about it and never described it as a parody. Or how it describes that some authors argue that the SCUM manifesto is parody and then the next sentence says she denied that directly?
And for what? To whitewash a mentally ill violent sexist attempted murderer who alternatively described the reason she shot Warhol was because he was controlling and because she wanted him to pay attention to her?  TaqPCR (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)