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 sourcedmust 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
With the large number of edits by the supposed subject of this article (now blocked), there were a number of changed made to this article, namely the loss of the references and other information. My question is this, should the article be rolled back to the last edit prior to this long series of edits? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I say yes. I just reviewed all of the changes and I think the article is better with the references even at the expense of the information that was added. If the editor in question comes back and wants to add/correct the content, they can and should do it with citations. My $.02 WikipelliTalk04:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, with incorrect facts and poor spelling and grammar, i'm helping Rebecca make sure the page is up to date on her current life and the information is well written and spelt. I'm keen to lift the warning at the top of the page that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (January 2012)" Could anyone help me go about doing that?
I agree, I dislike tags at the tops of pages, however, unsourced additions (even if they are from the subject themselves) are discouraged. Cleanup of incorrect information and typos and expansion is all very much welcomed. For simple spelling and grammar issues, you should feel free to jump in and fix whatever problems you see. However, reliable sources are necessary when correcting sourced information or adding new information (even if it's not particularly controversial). Just as an example: If the article stated that she had two children and cited a reliable source which supported that information, then we would ideally need to cite another reliable source establishing that she had three children before correcting the information. I know this can be frustrating for a subject of a Wikipedia article (of course Ms. Frayn knows very well how many children she has), but Wikipedia has no way of verifying if someone really is who they say they are, so reliable sources are still required (even for the most innocuous information). Wikipedia also uses some rather complex templates (not the least of which are reflink tags), which can be difficult to navigate when editing a page. I just glanced at the edit history and I see that all of the references were removed during the aforementioned contributor's editing process (most of which appears to have been subsequently reverted as a result of this) and I'm guessing that most likely was not the intention, but these types of errors by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and templates can all be reasons for why edits to a page are reverted. Just glancing at the article, I don't see huge neutrality issues, but you might want to go in and remove unnecessary adjectives such as the ones that I see in the opening paragraph:
“
"She has directed a wide variety of quirky documentary essays for the BBC, Channel 4 and ITV on subjects that range from Tory Wives to the Friern Barnet Mental Asylum and identical twins".
”
I know these seem like small issues, but an article filled with them (even short articles) are examples of how a page gets tagged. Ideally, this type of information should also have a source cited which substantiates the information. I've been busy lately, so I don't have the time to perform this type of cleanup myself right now, but these are just some examples of things you might want to address which can help get the tags removed. One other issue, I see several sources listed in the "External links" section which could be used as inline citations within the article. New editors should be mindful that tacking a source into the "External links" section is not the same thing as citing it as an inline citation to verify information within the article. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}