Emily Lloyd has been listed as one of the
Media and drama 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. Review: December 29, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Emily Lloyd appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 January 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I am new and this is my first article. I don't know what i should change on my article to contribute to Wikipedia Melly42 13:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. I refer to your edit here [1]. I am well aware that as of 2017 the Daily Mail is generally considered unreliable and I have always previously avoided using this source. However, in this case the Daily Mail article is actually written by the actress in question. I note blogs are deemed notable on Wikipedia if the person who has written them has notability themselves. I see no reason why Emily Lloyd writing herself in the Daily Mail should be covered by a blanket ban on the site. She is unlikely to have sensationalised or fabricated slander about herself, or have poor-fact checking regarding her own life, reasons that were given for the Daily Mail being considered unreliable. The source is also not used for anything that is unduly self-serving or biased in her favour; she admits drug addiction in the article, among other things. Furthermore the article in question is from 2013, predating the point from which the source was generally considered unreliable. I've reverted the removal of content but I'm happy to discuss the matter further. Damien Linnane ( talk) 01:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aoba47 ( talk · contribs) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Picking this up for review.
Aoba47 (
talk) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Everything looks good here.
Good work with this section.
You have done a wonderful job with this article. I have honestly never heard of this person before, but it was a very interesting (and very sad read). Once my comments are addressed, I will promote this as a GA. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
What is even in the picture of Emily Lloyd? 47.157.200.6 ( talk) 16:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Emily Lloyd has been listed as one of the
Media and drama 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. Review: December 29, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Emily Lloyd appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 January 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I am new and this is my first article. I don't know what i should change on my article to contribute to Wikipedia Melly42 13:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. I refer to your edit here [1]. I am well aware that as of 2017 the Daily Mail is generally considered unreliable and I have always previously avoided using this source. However, in this case the Daily Mail article is actually written by the actress in question. I note blogs are deemed notable on Wikipedia if the person who has written them has notability themselves. I see no reason why Emily Lloyd writing herself in the Daily Mail should be covered by a blanket ban on the site. She is unlikely to have sensationalised or fabricated slander about herself, or have poor-fact checking regarding her own life, reasons that were given for the Daily Mail being considered unreliable. The source is also not used for anything that is unduly self-serving or biased in her favour; she admits drug addiction in the article, among other things. Furthermore the article in question is from 2013, predating the point from which the source was generally considered unreliable. I've reverted the removal of content but I'm happy to discuss the matter further. Damien Linnane ( talk) 01:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aoba47 ( talk · contribs) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Picking this up for review.
Aoba47 (
talk) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Everything looks good here.
Good work with this section.
You have done a wonderful job with this article. I have honestly never heard of this person before, but it was a very interesting (and very sad read). Once my comments are addressed, I will promote this as a GA. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
What is even in the picture of Emily Lloyd? 47.157.200.6 ( talk) 16:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)