Jump to content

Talk:Joan Crawford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJoan Crawford was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
February 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 20, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 10, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Several paragraphs are one or two sentences long and should be combined. Several sections are too long and should be summarised more effectively or broken up with headings. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The sections on her charitable involvement and portrayals in popular culture both look particularly bitty and could do with rewriting. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Birth Year

[edit]

Since it seems no one is going to be able to convince everyone what her actual birth year was (I say it’s ‘06), then Ms. Crawford should at least be honored with the year she used broadly and consistently for over 40 years. That’s 1908. Leaving it blank is rather catty and drama-tinged. The birth year 1908 should be able to be protected just as well as the two spooky question marks are with warnings and notations. She’s a human of the modern age, and a revered one. Let’s let her have her year of birth. Clarawolfe (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOB Moxy🍁 14:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gurrl, it's she like she wrote that mess herself.
Ok. Clarawolfe (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]