Talk:Anita Carter

message: :Image:AnitaCarterRingOfFire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AnitaCarterRingOfFire.jpg

message: Current listing states vocals and bass.  There is video evidence that she also played guitar.
PCB
9 Feb. 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.45.159 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments 

message: Hi FrankP
I just posted something immediately previous to your post.  To summarize again I think the tags placed on the article are too broad.  I think they were initially placed there arbitrarily as evidenced by the fact that Dorsetonian initially took issue with revisions from one date on the article and later changed that date to catch previous revisions.  IF content before December 30 was once ok then how did it suddenly become "not ok" four days later?
It would be most helpful to the article if individual items within the article were questioned and/or recommended for revision.
You will find that the sources used in the recent revision for the article are all published, and publicly available, pieces of writing.  They range from newspaper articles to magazine articles to peer reviewed articles from journals to popular books to academic books.  In fact some of the specific, individual resources Dorsetonian has proposed erasing entirely by going back to very old versions of the Wikipedia article in question are in use all over Wikipedia in multiple other articles.  So, the question becomes why are those references appropriate for articles on X, Y or Z but NOT appropriate for this article we are discussing?
Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by 199.68.111.73 

message: I encountered the changes being made by  during recent change patrol; IMO the new content was highly problematic and irredeemable - but I tagged rather than reverted in order to get additional opinion. Thank you for now taking that on! Above, I proposed to revert only this IPs recent changes but it has become clear that they are working in tandem with  (from the style of writing, and the comment "my collaborator and I" above) so further propose to revert that IPs change on 24 December as well, restoring the version of 20 December.
My view is this: the additions since then are a series of unquestioning superlatives, far from the objective and neutral prose required of an encyclopaedic article. It is written in the style of the personal reflection of a fan or associate of the subject to such an extent that it is essentially spam from start to finish.These changes consist in their entirety of weasel words: ; puffery: ,  and editorialising: ; .
The writing contains obvious passion and there are outlets for work such as this - but Wikipedia is not one of them.
Dorsetonian (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by Dorsetonian 

message: There is specific guidance in the Manual of Style on the structure of a biographical lead section. That would seem like a good starting point.
::The opening paragraph should usually state:
::#Name(s) and title(s), if any . Handling of the subject's name is covered below in .
::#Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
::#Context (location or nationality);
::#The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played;
::#Why the person is notable.
The lead also devotes a large amount of space to Elvis Presley rather than Anita Carter.
--Reverend Banjo (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead too long