Talk:Judy Garland/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Changed the Seconal level in article

message: 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. . 
Anyway, I won't be watchlisting this; if someone can use this, great. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Can only sing for nothing" 

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

message: Would it best to create subpages for the lists of all Judy's films, recordings, biographies, etc? --Ozgod 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Subpage

message: Is it an event worthy enough of its own article? --Ozgod 05:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Carnegie Hall

message: 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)
thread_title: What's with the Death section?

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Gay icon?

message: I removed the link from his reference. --Jmeden2000 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joey Luft article redirects here anyway 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: 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 , , , , and/or . In the Ancestry
section, "(reference: The Golden Years by Rita Piro)" should be a citation. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA Review

message: 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)
thread_title: GA comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Gay Icon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birth Name vs Stage Name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "earliest paternal ancestor" ???