Talk:KaDee Strickland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star KaDee Strickland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 14, 2005.
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] Author author!

Could it possibly be that this page was written by Ms. Strickland or one of her close associates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.111.36.70 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 Jun 2005.

In the future, please sign your posts with ~~~~ so people know who wrote it and when, even if you want to be anonymous. To answer your question: no, I am not Ms. Strickland or one of her close associates, just a fan of hers. But I think I'll take your remark as a compliment. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All I can say is that if Ms Strickland isn't paying you to promote her career, she should be. MK2 04:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't write this article to promote her career, if that's what you're suggesting. Extraordinary Machine 18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
What you're saying, then, is that no person or organization in the field of public relations, or in any way associated with Ms. Strickland, had anything to do with the creation of this article, or with its ascension to featured article status, in any way, shape, or form? BYT 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that should be taken as a compliment. As an encyclopedia article writer it should be your goal to remain strictly unbiased. If you wan't to write an article try to remain factual or as close to factual as possible. Do not overembellish your emotions. Although this is by users for users, we are all seeking truth. User:Lagrangian
I have tried to remain strictly unbiased towards this article, and have written it in compliance with WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, i.e. by using quotes about Strickland from the media (in other words, attributing points of view to sources). From all of the articles I have read, the press generally seem to rate Strickland quite highly, so I tried to reflect this in the article. Extraordinary Machine 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if what I wrote sounded condescending - that wasn't my intent. Personally, I think it's a well written article with no apparent bias or false information. I was just surprised that someone who has no direct connection with Ms Strickland or her career would have this amount of information on her. But we all have our personal fields of interest I suppose, which is one of the pillars this site was built on.
I can't understand the viewpoint of those who are arguing that the article should be shortened because it contains too much information about its subject - if you think other articles are relatively too short, then lenghthen those articles rather than cut this one down. I can agree it wouldn't have been one of the articles I would have chosen as a front page featured article, but that's a temporary situation and I'm not going to worry about it. MK2 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Never heard of her until now and I'm an IMDB.com fanatic

I will say that this is a well written article. But, it's confounding at the same time because other movie actresses of greater regard have wiki pages more barren than a Hollywood Casting Agent's dinner napkin after a 12 minute meeting with a producer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.17.144.2 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 December 2005.


Another pointless feature article, who is this person?! Wikipedia is really losing credibility, what is the point?!....(Raniya 01:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

If you want to find out who the person is, read the damn article. Ouuplas 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Reminds me of that FA recently about some Courtney Cox movie no-one had ever heard of, that became the FA about two minutes after passing peer review. And this actress was actually featured at the top of IMDB a while back as an example of why to submit your head shot. She must have a savvy publicist. Kaisershatner 01:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting.....and yes Ouuplas I read the article....and I still think it is inconsequential to be in the front page. (Raniya 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

The article is well written, but there should be a relevance filter as well for it to be featured. I am an occasional reader of wikipedia, and am usually impressed by the feature article. This is an exception. User:IP deleted 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree the feature article should be an example of what wikpedia is trying to achieve. So making this article a feature article completely legitimizes using wikipedia for self promotion. (I know the main author claims to just be a fan.) User:IP deleted 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed completely. I work on a lot of actor pages, most are well-known and not even 1/4th the size of this. It should be cut down.Vulturell 04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think one of the great things about Wikipedia is that there are so many well-developed articles about topics not many people are familiar with. Also, the bulk of November (film), the article "about some Courtney Cox movie no-one had ever heard of", was also written by me. Extraordinary Machine 18:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, FWIW, I think your writing and research in this article and in the case of November (film) are well-developed and fine. And people's point of view will differ as to what's interesting and/or notable. To me the "problem," inasmuch as there is one, is in the process of selecting what FA to put on the front page. Kaisershatner 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Why is there such a huge page dedicated to her? I mean, they spend paragraph upon paragraph talking about minor rules. Look at the page for Johnny Messner, her Anacondas co-star. That's about how big (ok, maybe slightly bigger) this should be. We need to cut it down and majorly tighten it. Vulturell 03:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You're seriously saying that this article would be better as a sub-stub than in its current form? I'm not entirely certain you understand what the point of an encyclopedia is. The information presented in the article is relevant, verifiable, and well written, and has passed through two rigorous systems to determine its validity as a featured article. GeeJo (t) (c) 04:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the need for pop culture articles. I edit a large number of them myself, and in fact those are the only ones I do edit. I am saying this is a very minor actress and this reads like an FBI report of every single move she's made and everything she's said in the past couple of years. An encylcopedia need not only be correct, it has to be relevant. Kadee Strickland is not very relevant and deserves only a minor article. This makes it seem like she's very notable, especially compared to other actor pages like Julia Roberts, Catherine Zeta-Jones or Reese Witherspoon. The info presented here relates to small appeareances and content that is just not notable under any possibly rationale. Maybe the people at Peer Review were misinformed as to this actress' notability. Compare here even with Richard Pryor. If his entry was written with as much useless, extraneous detail, we would probably need to put it on a couple of separate pages. Vulturell 04:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the significance of this encyclopedia was to be spent in such long articles about an unknown actress....I guess if I write a good article about Courtney Peldon it would be feature in the front page also. (Raniya 04:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Here's an example. This article spends a PARAGRAPH talking about two films that she had one brief scene in!

"Strickland appeared in two romantic comedy films in 2003. Anything Else was written and directed by Woody Allen (Annie Hall), and featured Strickland in her largest role yet in a Hollywood production as the girlfriend of Jason Biggs (whom he snubs for Christina Ricci), but the film was greeted with dismal ticket sales and lukewarm reviews (though Strickland in 2005 referred to the film as her "big break"). The later release Something's Gotta Give (starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton) was far more successful at the box office and with critics, although Strickland's part in the film was restricted to a single scene in which she played the partner of Dave (Paul Michael Glaser), whose young age raises eyebrows with Dave's ex-wife (Keaton) and daughter (Amanda Peet)." Plot summary, extraneous info, this can easily be changed to "In 2003, Strickland had small roles in two romantic comedies, Anything Else and Something's Gotta Give." If I was more of a hero I would start actually replacing these paragraphs with the kind of sentences they need to be in, i.e. this example. But I'm tired of edit wars. Vulturell 05:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a moderate inclusionist. Concise writing is good and I'll hack something down but we have no limitation like a paper encylopedia.--Gbleem 05:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would quit reading this article about three paragraphs in because it doesn't tell me much, besides Strickland's slow ascent to some sort of fame. Vulturell 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Surely this is dealt with by good use of headers, and section summaries: I've split "career" into "Rise to fame" and "Major roles". Better titles could no doubt be found. Rich Farmbrough 10:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
As the user who wrote the bulk of this article, I can say that its current length and level of detail is almost exactly the same as it was when it passed through peer review and FAC, and there were no concerns raised about these issues at the time. I tried to make the article about as comprehensive as Sharon Tate (another FA), and I believe that I was successful. I don't understand the suggestions that because Strickland is considered by some to be "not very relevant", her Wikipedia article shouldn't be as thorough (but not exhaustive) as it can be. I think that instead of compressing this article, the answer is to expand articles on more well-known actors and actresses. Extraordinary Machine 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good job!

I'm very impressed with the detail, style, and extensive reference work on this article. This is truly an example to follow. Good work. Deco 04:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I second the sentiments of Deco above. To those who complain that KaDee Strickland is an FA while the articles for Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep are not as impressive, perhaps you should put effort into improving those articles rather than disparaging this one. --Sophitus 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Suppose Julia Roberts wants to improve the Julia Roberts article. And plug her next movie, say, while she's at it. And remind us to buy the forthcoming Special Edition of Pretty Woman in a Limited Time 3-DVD Set for Only $19.99, call 1-800-PRETTYWOMAN. Just in time for Christmas. You'd be cool with that, too? BYT 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
No. However, I didn't include any mentions of DVD release dates for any of KaDee Strickland's films in this article. Additionally, I hope you're not implying that the information on her forthcoming projects should be removed, as all of it is supported by references and does not violate the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. I've seen it done on other articles, which is why I included it here. Extraordinary Machine 20:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Um, que?

Whilst from the looks of her pictures I would personally be fully in favour of instigating carnal relations with her, apart from that this lady has absolutely no notability whatsoever. I have never heard of her, and for a more empirical reading cf. the length of this article with her biography on IMDB (which consists of a single sentence). I don't dispute that the purpose of any encyclopaedia should ideally be to have a complete, factually accurate and balanced entry on as many subjects as possible, but I seriously wonder why this is a featured article. It smacks to me like it may well have been written by a sockpuppet (e.g. her agent or similar) and in any event it has no case for appearing on the front page, imho. Most unfortunate for the credibility of wiki as a serious encyclopaedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.181.218 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 December 2005.

I do believe that every article should have the potential to be featured (otherwise we'll end up with a sanitized Main Page), but it might make sense for the community or the FA director to give each one a "featurability rating" on a level from 1 to 5. Articles with higher featurability would then be chosen before those with a lower rating. This one is pretty clearly a 1, in my opinion. Having such a rating system might also decrease the incentives for astroturfers to push articles through the FA process.--Eloquence* 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is apparently her birthday today (just looked on IMDB). Besides, who cares if she isn't "notable". That's your POV. For some others, she is notable. Regardless, notability is not what gets featured article status; it takes hard work to write an article that meets the standards, and therefore those articles should be rewarded with featured status. 70.48.111.198 08:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea Eloquence. All I would say to user 70.48.111.198|70.48.111.198 is that (in my opinion, and it is only my opinion) maybe featured articles should be chosen not only on the basis of the quality of the writing, but also (since they appear of the page with surely more hits than any other on wiki) potential educational value. This article has close to zero educational value, and moreover (due to the high profile of any FA) offers an added incentive for commercial organisations to astroturf or otherwise corrupt wiki for their own ends. However, that's just a thought, there certainly isn't anything wrong with the article per se (although I can't check the facts because I haven't a clue who she is!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.183.114 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 December 2005.

[edit] Does size matter?

If you think another actor or actress deserves a bigger article then go add to it. One motivation of fans of lesser known actors is the same motivation for many wikipedians: To be part of something that will be big in the future. Wikipedia was so little when I started.--Gbleem 05:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How?

How did this page get so long. There is nothing wrong with it, and as an article it deserves to be a featured article, due to its length and to it being well written; I just don't understand how an extremely minor actress got such a page. Can anyone explain? - Matthew238 07:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is apparently Extraordinary Machine's baby. Pretty much everything came from him. *clap* 70.48.111.198 09:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! The answer is, I am a fan of this actress, and wanted to write a comprehensive article about her on Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos!

Well done to those who contributed to this feature article :D BigDan 10:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am one of the users who contributed to this article. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth is this doing on the main page?

Who is this woman?

How did this article get here?

Were press agents involved?

Who honestly thinks this article is well written and important enough to edge out any other topic on earth? BYT 14:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Read the article.
  2. It was created by myself on June 14, 2005.
  3. No.
  4. The users who voted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KaDee Strickland. Also, the presence of this article on the Main Page does not mean that it is considered to be important enough to edge out any other topic on earth. It is featured on the Main Page today because I left a request at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article for it to be today's featured article, as today is Strickland's twenty-eighth birthday. Extraordinary Machine 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] did this chick give wiki a cool $1million or something?

Its a very well written article, but seriously, how is this the featured article? Cornell Rockey 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I wanted to write a comprehensive article on Wikipedia about Strickland, and it was voted on at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KaDee Strickland. Extraordinary Machine 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It doesn't matter how well written it is

Subject Matters. An accomplished actress, even not well-known, would be an appropriate feature article. This is just shameless commercial promotion. Why not an article on the upcoming release of King-Kong, with a Pepsi logo in the background of the picture? A new low for Wiki. Two thumbs down. Limbo socrates 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is nothing in the featured article criteria that says the subject of an article has to be notable for it to be featured on the Main Page. It would be near impossible to have an article on an upcoming, unreleased film featured, no matter how good the article was, as it would fail the stability criterion. Extraordinary Machine 19:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm sorry everyone's attacking you're page. You did a very good job, regardless of the subject's 'relevance'. However, many of the criticism users are raising about it are extremely relevant and cannot be dismissed.
"[T]here is nothing in the featured article criteria that says the subject of an article has to be notable for it to be featured on the Main Page". Well its possible there should be; Wiki is a work-in-progress and this controversy has illustrated that such criteria may be necessary.
"It would be near impossible to have an article on an upcoming, unreleased film featured, no matter how good the article was, as it would fail the stability criterion." That is completely false (and I think you may have missed Limbo's point regarding the King Kong remake). Your statement presumes a criterion that does not yet exist. As I said before, it is time to discuss these things. Thaswell 14 December 2005
Regardless of my opinion on this matter, proposals to alter the criteria should be left at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles and Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article, and not here. I'm not sure what you meant by your reference to there being no stability criterion, but there is one listed on the criteria page. In any case, the user above seems to me to be implying that I am attempting to promote the career of Strickland, when this is untrue. Extraordinary Machine 20:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, this isn't "my page". Extraordinary Machine 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually I think you are missing the point. We cannot be so naïve as to refuse to consider the possibililty that the Wiki Main Page, one of the most heavily trafficked in the world, might be exploited for financial or personal gain. What the Wiki readers are saying is this article smells fishy: How much attention does this aspiring actress gain from having her Featured on the front page of Wiki? If readers start to think that Wiki has become the pawn of commercial interests, its credibilty is shot. Limbo socrates 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of your point, but what I am saying is that I am not trying to exploit the featured article process for financial or personal gain for myself or others. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What a waste

This article screams "FANBOY". It shouldn't be on the front page. So what about some two-bit actress whose career is in the making. Many actors and actresses have been *MADE* into what they are... Strickland is no different; just another pretty face that can be taught acting and plopped into the latest and greatest pop movie.

How about featuring people that actually matter on the front page? Since when does Isaac Newton "open" for a nobody? Yes, the article includes valid information, but since when was being verbose and having a huge bibliography the criteria for being "well written"?

Please don't consider my comments a compliment. The article author needs to find a better topic to research, in my humble opinion...

-Human Being —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.186.47.170 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 December 2005.

Waste of what? Wikipedia is not constricted by a certain area of paper it must consume. The main problem is that there are not too many featured articles to choose from which haven't been on the front page already (see WP:FA). If you really think more relevent articles should be on the front page, then develop those articles to featured article status so we can put them there. --Oldak Quill 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

a:) Waste of bandwidth, pixels, your attention and mine, WP's status as an independent media source, etc.

b:) Re: "There aren't enough good featured articles." Sorry -- don't buy it. Thirty seconds here [1] is enough to demonstrate that there are real topics both before and (for a nice long stretch) after this bogus one. Again, I smell press agentry here. That is what's offensive. BYT 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you believe it to be a waste of your attention (I wouldn't call this a waste of my attention, we are discussing the fundamentals of the Wikipedia), then do not read and proceed to comment on this article. If Wikipedia wishes to remain independent then it is necessary to not panded to cultural POV over what is "notable" or not. --Oldak Quill 20:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why have we not been told of this "Crisis of Featured Article Candidates?" -- Did it just come to a head with this one regrettable article? What will we do for the FA tomorrow and in the future? Limbo socrates 18:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it funny how elitist some of our readers can be. KaDee Strickland is just this side of notable, but the fact that Wikipedia has an article on her simply speaks to our strengths, not our weaknesses. Wario got a similar reception when it was featured on the mainpage, and Michael Power (Guinness character) was even nominated for deletion after a simple blurb on Did You Know! We're not a paper encyclopedia, and we can include articles on many, many topics that Britannica and the like must eschew. This anti-elitist attitude toward what topics "deserve" articles and "deserve" main-page placement is quite attractive, in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Maintaining standards is not elitist, it's a requisite of any publication. Attacking the motives or character of critics is not rebuttal, it's mudslinging. Limbo socrates 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ignore the first sentence of my comments, then. The point remains: Wikipedia's inclusion of a wide range of topics, many of which are fairly ephemeral, should not be perceived as a bad thing; rather, it should be spotlighted. — BrianSmithson 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Look, you keep making it sound like I object to there being articles about actresses (notable or otherwise).
  • What I object to is there being press releases for actresses, presumably composed with their approval, masquerading as encyclopedia articles. If we need a wide range of articles, so be it. But not at the expense of letting Strickland or anyone else (literally) dictate the content, which is apparently what happened here.
  • Compare Edip Yuksel, where we have been pretty darn vigilant about keeping self-promoting bilge out of the text. This article, by contrast, consists entirely of self-promoting bilge.
  • a) How come, and who's the prime mover for it?
  • b) Why did this featured article become a mainpage selection?
  • c) If I have a birthday coming up, does that mean I get an article on the mainpage on that date? Complete with all kinds of self-aggrandizing quotes about myself? BYT 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that a fannish article has no business being featured; this one is arguably such a piece. What I disagree with is the idea that certain articles on flash-in-the-pan subjects should not be featured because they will make Wikipedia look bad. I apologize for lumping you and Limbo socrates in with the anonymous editor who started this discussion. The anonymous contributor is the person with whom I seem to be in disagreement about whether certain articles are not "notable" enough for the main page. — BrianSmithson 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried to write the article in compliance with WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, i.e. by using quotes about Strickland from the media (in other words, attributing points of view to sources). From all of the articles I have read, the press generally seem to rate Strickland quite highly, so I tried to reflect this in the article. Extraordinary Machine 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered Questions for User:Extraordinary Machine

Whatever. I'll happily accept the "elitist" label when I get a straight answer to the question I posed about whether Strickland or anyone associated with her had anything to do with the creation of the article. I mean ... Where, for instance, did all those original quotes come from?
One of many possible examples I could cite:
However, a career in the performing arts had never been seriously considered by Strickland until her participation in a one-act play performed by students of her high school: "... the minute I set foot on stage, that was it. Destiny took over. There were no other options. I felt like I fit my skin, I knew what I was here to do", Strickland said.
Elitist, shmelitist. What exactly is going on here? What is the origin of this content? Did Strickland, or anyone working with her, have anything to do with it? BYT 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Now this I can agree with. The direct quotations need to be sourced with footnotes. — BrianSmithson 20:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we all agree with the need for sourcing such quotes. --Oldak Quill 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
BYT's message above would benefit from some context. On my talk page, he wrote: "What you're saying, then, is that no person or organization in the field of public relations, or in any way associated with Ms. Strickland, had anything to do with the creation of this article, or with its ascension to featured article status, in any way, shape, or form? BYT 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)".
To answer your question: no, no person or organization in the field of public relations, or in any way associated with Ms. Strickland, had anything to do with the creation of this article, or with its ascension to featured article status, in any way, shape, or form. I added most of the quotes in at least a few months ago, and I'll have to read through the references again to see which ones support which quote (and then add footnotes in), but all of them are from interviews with Strickland, and none of them are "original" to this article. Extraordinary Machine 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Okay, I appreciate your directness here. That (for me) was the big issue.
We're left with the puzzle about how a piece like this -- which, quite frankly, strikes me as bordering on hagiography -- made it to the top of the pile for mainpage exposure, despite such an egregious lack of balance, only borderline notability, and clearly inadequate sourcing. I would very much like to hear User:Raul654's take on these issues. BYT 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried to write the article in compliance with WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, i.e. by using quotes about Strickland from the media (in other words, attributing points of view to sources). From all of the articles I have read, the press generally seem to rate Strickland quite highly, so I tried to reflect this in the article. Extraordinary Machine 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Any particular reason for excluding any references to which members of the media, specifically, you were quoting from and relying on in developing quotes from Strickland? This (entirely laudatory) article seems to have absolutely nothing negative to say about her. Maybe sourcing the quotes would have given the reader more to work from in terms of developing context that is absent from the piece as a whole. BYT 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, since all of the quotes from critics have footnotes, and the names of the critics are mentioned in the body of the article. I've also included links to sites that contain collections of reviews for some of her films. Extraordinary Machine 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

okay so, consider my curiousity piqued. a quick look at rottentomatoes.com reveals that the films she's been involved with haven't fared too well with the critics. eg 'the grudge', from the venerable usa today: 'As some wise person once said, Hollywood will always churn out movies like this as long as there are teenage girls who want to squeeze the hands of teenage boys while sitting in a dark theater.' the nytimes was harder on it. so, where is a mention of this and the other hard times kadee has had? if you're not her agent, extraordinary machines, you need to stop staring at her poster on your wall and get back to work fleshing this thing out with some objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.181.190 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 December 2005.

I think that general comments like that are appropriate for inclusion in an article about the film, but this article is about an actress. What does the USA Today quote you just presented have anything to do with the discussion of KaDee Strickland's role in the film? If the critic commented about her specifically (or the cast in general), then that's fine and you can add the relevant quote in, but not ones that are completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Extraordinary Machine 18:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

i think the relevant point is that she is best know for her work in b-grade movies, which gives valuable context, and illustrates the important differences between her and for instance katherine hepburn: she's (to date) a minor actress working in minor films.

[edit] Name Pronounciation?

Is it pronounced Caw-Dee or does it sound similar to Katie/Katy/Catie?

--Bourbon King 18:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Latter. Mike H. That's hot 21:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Streep + Roberts

To whoever said their articles need to be expanded - I disagree. They are fine as they are now. Maybe Richard Gere needs to be expanded, it isn't that big for a high-level actor. But, potential grammar problems aside, the Roberts and Streep articles are good examples of what a high-level actor's page should look like - early life summary and details in a few paragraphs - career start and career highpoints summaries in the next - and private life/involvement in politics/incidents/etc. in a few paragraphs after. I wouldn't want to read what Julia Roberts thought about appearing as "Ghost #5" in Sixth Sense and why someone cast her. It's not notable. Strickland's page should be condensed into two paragraphs or so. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks this and I suspect the people who praise this article don't really know anything about actors and are unaware of who Strickland is and her notability level. User:Extraordinary Machine did the same thing with that Courtney Cox movie, November, which was featured on November 20th. And again, it was a gigantic article with a detailed plot summary. Machine says he's a fan of Strickland, well, I have to tell you, if I was an agent I would much rather see a quick summary of she has done and a picture if I wanted to cast, I wouldn't want to wallow through a huge piece that doesn't tell me anything besides expand on the four or five minor roles she's done - so you aren't doing her any favours, either. If I'm a fan of certain actors, I would tighten up their entries, provide a filmography of notable films, put in links to a few good interviews (and in fact that's what I've been doing for a large number of the Golden Globe nominees) but no one needs a monstrosity like this article and I really hope I don't have to start dealing with people expanding certain actor articles to extraneous and unmanagable lengths. It's a well-written monstrosity - but a monstrosity nevertheless. Vulturell 21:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also check out Sarah Jessica Parker for a relatively long (well, not compared to Strickland, but..) but well-done article - one paragraph on early life, a couple on her career (but mercifully it doesn't talk about what she was thinking when she was filming Episode #3 of her TV shows, ala Strickland), and enough on her personal life. It has a formatted filmography of her major films only and links. Vulturell 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have already written above, I can say that the article's current length and level of detail is almost exactly the same as it was when it passed through peer review and FAC, and there were no concerns raised about these issues at the time. I tried to make the article about as comprehensive as Sharon Tate (another FA), and I believe that I was successful. Likewise, the November (film) article was modelled slightly on other FA's about films, such as Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Casablanca (film). Obviously, as Strickland's career progresses, the article can be tweaked and compressed to exclude less important information, but I don't think that's necessary at the moment, and I don't care what an agent would think about this article. Extraordinary Machine 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you can point to the Peer Review but, again, obviously you are now facing a larger "peer review", so to speak, and there are people who are not comfortable with the length of the article. Tate is probably too big too, but she was higher-level at the time (no doubt mostly due to her murder) than Strickland. All I'm saying is I really hope people don't start expanding some of the articles I work on to gigantic lengths filled with microscopic, irrelevant detail and pointing to this article as proof that it's a good idea. One Strickland and one November I can live with, but frankly not any more than that. Vulturell 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
But there are also people who have commented positively about the length and detail of the article. Extraordinary Machine 21:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well then, I guess they're not thinking about it in practical terms. We may need to know what L. Ron Hubbard was thinking when he came up with Scientology, but frankly you could make very little argument as to why we need to know what Strickland was thinking (i.e. the quotes) when she had her 10-minute role in The Grudge. Vulturell 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't say that the people who complimented this article are "not thinking about it in practical terms". Looking at previous comments on this talk page, only yourself and User:Raniya have expressed concerns about the article's length and level of detail. In addition to Sharon Tate, see Kylie Minogue, which like this article has quotes from the subject herself about her work. I think this kind of material is very important, as it gives the reader a sense of how Strickland feels about her roles and her career as a whole. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I hereby express concern over the article's length and level of detail. Also its similarity to a (hypothetical) press release from the actress's (hypothetical) press agent. I do, however, admire its steely discipline in avoiding the direct suggestion that she's being rumored as having made the short list for the next Nobel Peace Prize. BYT 13:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, you think whatever you want to think. I just hope no one tries to do the same for the large number of articles that I work on. Vulturell 22:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penis picture vandalism

OH MY GOD! No one seems to have noticed that when you click on her picture, a HUGE PICTURE OF A SMALL PENIS SHOWS UP!

GOOD LORD, PEOPLE! STOP THE MADNESS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.216.72 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 December 2005.

Our apologies, this is a frequent tactic of vandals. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Tone

The tone of the article definitely sounds like something you'd see on a fan web site. In particular the lead sounds a little too high on Ms. Strickland and the quote seems out of place. The "significant parts" term should be replaced by "supporting roles." The lead also lists a bunch of names that are mentioned as if the reader should know who they are - it would be a lot better if those names were replaced by names of reputable trade publications. The intentions of the original author notwithstanding, that particular sentence sounds like overhyped praise from a press junket or a movie poster.

As for being on the main page, I was kind of surprised it was there, but notability isn't a criteria for being a featured article (although it is considered for inclusion of an article). But if Japanese toilet can makes it way to the main page, then any standout article can be on there. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the article again. Yes, I can understand why it may seem "a little too high" on the subject, but as the press generally seem to rate Strickland quite highly (this is from all of the articles I have read), I tried to reflect this in the article. I tried to write the article in compliance with WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, i.e. by using quotes about Strickland from the media (in other words, attributing points of view to sources). Also, I think the article is quite similar to Henry Fonda (another FA), and I tried to have everything about that article (and other featured articles about celebrities) influence my work on this article. I see that the "significant parts" term has been reduced to "parts", which I think improves the article, as while her roles in those films were quite important, the word "significant" implies that they were leading roles (also it reads slightly better). I agree with you that subject notability shouldn't have to be a criterion for being promoted to featured status. Extraordinary Machine 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Issac Newton to B-list starlet...

...Wikipedia digresses from the sublime to the ridiculous. --malber 03:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that you are aware of the featured article criteria, and that I have already explained the featured article process to you on Talk:Cool (song), I find your comment rather odd. Extraordinary Machine 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a well written article, and I don't dispute that it meets the current FA criteria. But is she an Issac Newton let alone then next Lauren Bacall? I think it's examples like this and Cool (song) that display that there should be some criteria for what gets featured on the main page. --malber 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well as I said on Talk:Cool (song), you're complaining in the wrong place. I suggest that you leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles and/or Wikipedia:What is a featured article if you intend on proposing a major change such as this to the criteria. Extraordinary Machine 19:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock term

WP:APT Please remove the word "significant" from the intro, unless you can cite any other "significant" role other than the lead role in the Anaconda sequel. --malber 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "significant" has been removed, but if you had read the article, you would know that she had supporting roles in Anything Else and Fever Pitch. Additionally, The Grudge is an ensemble film with her included in the main cast. You also could have also worded this sentence you added to the lead section a little less pointedly: "To date, Strickland has had only one lead role. All other roles have either been supporting, extra, or have ended up on the cutting room floor." Do you have any evidence to support the claim that at least one of her roles has been left on the cutting room floor? Extraordinary Machine 18:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence of my addition is factual and corroborated by the references. The second, I have to admit, was creative prose, but not totally factually inacurate. It should have been modified, not reverted. --malber 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unless I'm missing something, these quotes remain uncited

Despite the dustup we had yesterday.

Which is odd.

I for one would like to know where they came from.

  • "it's been a dream. It really has. Everyone has been so focused and lovely and it's just wonderful...I'm gonna be whole hog with it and hopefully do it until I'm in the grave."
  • When she was a young child, Strickland had once watched the film Annie Hall (1977), and recalled "wanting to be in that place, and being completely taken with the energy of those people. I wanted to be in it."
  • "... the minute I set foot on stage, that was it. Destiny took over. There were no other options. I felt like I fit my skin, I knew what I was here to do",
  • she was schooled in New York City for a time under the tutelage of Maggie Flanagan (to whom Strickland refers as her "Jedi Knight"),
  • who would instruct her students to watch films with the sound turned off to gauge a good acting performance by how much one could understand the story. (That's not a quote, but it appears to be a paraphrase of a quote from Strickland. What is the original source on this?)
  • Of Shyamalan, Strickland said, "He is a lovely man, and one of the most focused I've been around... I still can't get over how tightly he ran his ship."
  • (though Strickland in 2005 referred to the film as her "big break").
  • In the fall of 2004, Strickland embarked on what she described as "the craziest job I’ve ever had"
  • Strickland, whose co-stars in the pilot included Frances Fisher and Bruce McGill, said that she was "really excited to have the opportunity to portray this phenomenal lady",

Can we clarify where these came from, please? BYT 13:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of my recent edits have been related to this article, despite the edits (and vandalism) to other, completely unrelated articles on my watchlist. I apologise for not inserting the footnotes yesterday, but I quite frankly didn't have the time or patience. I see you complained on User talk:Raul654 about "totally unsourced quotes" within the article, which is untrue, as the references are there, just not in footnote form. Extraordinary Machine 19:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I may have been unclear. The article needs to specify the source of each of these individual quotes, as they appear in the article. The specifications should, I think, appear in such a way as to allow the reader to trace them, either through the Internet or through research at a public library, to the publication in which they appear. BYT 19:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Colbert

...while Ray Colbert considered her a "major player in the industry".

Who is Ray Colbert? According to IMDB, he's another B-list actor who's last role was in The Practice in 1997 playing "Salesman". Why should we care what he thinks? Moreover, where is this quote cited? --malber 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That Colbert thing is very suspect. Here is the exact line: "Filmed on location in Philadelphia with a relatively unknown cast when this project began who are now major players in the industry: Wood Harris (HBO’s The Wire); MC Lyte (UPN’s Half and Half); Kadee Strickland (The Grudge, Anacondas); Anita Hawkins (Fallen, GreenWorks TV); Terrence "Tat Money" Thomas (one of Philly’s legendary DJs); Colby Colb (PM for 103.9); Johnnie Hobbs (Twelve Monkeys, Freedom Theater) and, of course the legendary Esther Rolle."

http://video2edit.com/RelDowdellInterview.html Now I think it's misleading to write that "he referred to her as a "major player" specifically. That's one thing. The OTHER thing is that Colbert is hardly considered an authority, and the article just says "Ray Colbert". It should say "profession" and then "Ray Colbert" I.E. "Film Critic Roger Ebert", otherwise we don't know who this Colbert is. Logically, that line should say: "Referrred to, by little known actor Ray Colbert, as being among a group of actors as "major players in the industry". In fact I may well change it to that soon, as well as other things, because I can't put up with this article's blatant POV anymore. I will also find some review where a critic absolutely bloody trashes Strickland, and add it in, considering right now all we have, oddly enough, are positive reviews. Vulturell 17:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The actor Ray Colbert listed on IMDb is unlikely to be the same Ray Colbert who interviewed the director of the film Train Ride. I don't know what specific profession the second Colbert has, other than "interviewer". The article contains positive reviews because most of the articles and reviews I have read have spoken positively of Strickland. It's unwise to add negative reviews in for the sole reason of their being too many positive reviews. Extraordinary Machine 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: It's unwise to add negative reviews in for the sole reason of their being too many positive reviews.
Could I ask you elaborate on this, EM? BYT 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What I mean that is if most articles and reviews (the ones I have read, anyway) have spoken positively of Strickland, then it would reduce the credibility of the article if we were to insert a large proportion of negative quotes just because somebody thinks that the article, in attempting to accurately reflect Strickland's reception by the media, is now too positive about her. Extraordinary Machine 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Just to clarify -- the more unalloyed praise of the subject the article contains, the more firmly its credibility is established? So we shouldn't include "too many" negative reviews, because they would conflict with the positive sources you have turned up? These are the principles under which you're operating here? Are you quite serious? BYT 19:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What I meant is that the more accurately the article represents the subject's reception by the media, the more firmly its credibility is established. Most articles and reviews that I have read have spoken positively of Strickland, hence the number of positive quotes in the article. Extraordinary Machine 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The point of Wikipedia is NPOV and verifiability. You say you didn't want to include negative reviews of the actress because they might traduce the positive ones. This is definately not the practice of someone with the intent of acheiving the goal of NPOV.
If the Ray Colbert isn't the one in IMDB but "some guy with a website," how would that qualify her as a "major player in the industry" just because he says so. Has she ever appeared on Entertainment Weekly's, Premier magazine's, or Forbes's list of major Hollywood players? --malber 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What I think EM means is that in his research he encountered mostly positive reviews of Strickland. So, assuming he found 90% good stuff and 10% bad stuff, he tried to make the article 90% pro- and 10% anti-Strickland. What's at issue here isn't EM's motives; it's his execution. The piece should instead probably say something like,

Out of some [NUMBER1] reviews on Strickland's work, [NUMBER2] praise the actress. Film critic so-and-so of the Newspaper says that "QUOTE". So-and-so of the Magazine adds that "QUOTE". Others, on the other hand, pan her acting. News anchor so-and-so calls her performance in Anacondas "QUOTE", and so-and-so of Newspaper describes her supporting role in FILM as "QUOTE".

This way, EM can still convey that the majority of reviews praise the actress, but give even balance to the pros and cons about her. — BrianSmithson 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, BrianSmithson, this is exactly what I was trying to say. I don't think it's a good idea to mention in the article that "this number of critics praise her, while that number pans her" (I've never seen it done on any other article), but I've added a negative critical quote for her performance in Anacondas, and have mentioned that The Grudge received lukewarm reviews. But it's particularly hard finding quotes to use for her work in The Grudge, as most critics restrict their description of the film's cast to Sarah Michelle Gellar. Extraordinary Machine 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Subject's reception by the media"

Extraordinary Machine, it is an inescapable matter of public record that she has appeared in films that have been trashed by critics [2] [3]. Reviewing your remarks on this page, I have concluded that this fact seems, occasionally and surrealistically, to elude your radar. It is quite important to you to maintain that she has received entirely positive attention from the media. This is a strange thing to insist upon in an article about a public figure, and particularly in an article about an actor.

This review in particular is worthy of review, dismissing as it does the entire cast of Anacondas with the following broadside:

"The acting is awful, as would be expected, and most of the first act is excruciating to watch."

Even if they don't mention her by name, these kinds of reviews are in fact part of the "subject's reception by the media."

The article must make clear that that the "subject's reception by the media" sometimes fails to echo the boosterism of her fan base. Or her PR flacks. You seem to me to fall into one or the other of these categories, but if I'm wrong about that, please set me straight.

To my way of thinking, though, you are not editing this article at all. Rather, you are painstakingly airbrushing out wrinkles, pimples, and moles from an idealized photograph. Is it fair for me to ask why? BYT

The article already said that Anacondas was panned by critics and Fever Pitch received mixed reviews (contrary to what you have just suggested), and I've now added a mention of the lukewarm response to The Grudge. I've also included a negative critical quote about her performance in Anacondas; however, I maintain that most of the articles and reviews I have come across have discussed Strickland positively. I am a fan of hers (I'm definitely not one of her "PR flacks", as I've already told you), but I wanted to make this article NPOV, so I tried to emulate featured articles such as Julia Stiles, Sharon Tate, Kylie Minogue, Henry Fonda and others while writing it. Extraordinary Machine 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Whatever. She has been in some terrible movies, and taken some drubbings. Article now reflects that. I still don't think it should be featured, but it is at least tangentially connected to reality now. BYT 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Most of the reviews I read that mention Strickland specifically ([4], [5], [6], [7] for example) praised her performance. In any case, the article now has two positive Anacondas quotes, and two negative ones. I've also replaced Robert Ebert's quote about The Grudge with a quote that actually mentions the film's cast, as Evert's bears little relevance to Strickland. I've restored the paragraph about Strickland being an arts advocate (without the positive quote from the magazine editor), as I think it's important to mention about her non-acting activities (as on Julia Stiles). It seemed odd having information about one upcoming film and not the other, so I reinserted the bit about Walker Payne (I've seen articles on actors, actresses and singers that contain information about their forthcoming projects and nobody has ever objected to it), and I also put back in the sentences about the recently cancelled television series she was going to be in, as it would have been only her second leading role after Anacondas and it received quite a bit of coverage in more recent articles and interviews about Strickland that I have read. Additionally, other articles around the release of Anacondas and The Grudge talked about how Strickland was appearing in two horror films in a row, so I think the "scream queen" quote should stay (also, it gives the reader some sense of what Strickland herself thinks about her career). That said, I believe that several of your edits were quite excellent. Extraordinary Machine 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar-Coated Articles

Besides the other valid concerns that have been raised about commercialism, I haven't seen this mentioned yet in this discussion, so I will mention it.

( RE: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=wikipedia&btnG=Search+News )

With the recent "scandals" affecting Wikipedia, perhaps someone at Wikipedia has decided to launch a "counterattack" via sugar-coated articles about famous people? It seems obvious, based on the timing of the KaDee Strickland entry: search for articles which are "well-written", *and* which are overly positive.

It really, really sucks that people are attacking Wikipedia lately, because I enjoy floating from entry to entry. Also, I prefer Wikipedia links on topics over many other sources. I hope that no policy changes result from this stuff.

But come on, people. If you want Wikipedia to be taken seriously by the world, the content needs to be accurate and objective. Which means, not "fanboyish".

ExtraordinaryMachine, as I read your justifications for how you've slanted her article, I see *nothing* which convinces me you want accuracy or objectivity.

-Human Being


[edit] RE FA removal

Of course, remove from FA status (if this is still possible). Should never have been an FA candidate in the first place. The status of this ridiculous article is an affront to wikipedia.

[edit] I Propose FA Banishment

Let us revisit this woman in 10 years. This was the WORST FA candidate I had ever seen, and in light of the recent Wikipedia Controversies, this FA did not help. To make it worse, one user (ExtraordinaryMachine) feels this woman (whom most of have never heard of) is worthy of a FA. I doubt she has ever been featured in Time or Newsweek magazine ... this is pure fanboyism. Please spare us of this PR clutter.

[edit] Arts advocacy

I'm about to reinsert the paragraph about Strickland's art advocacy. I'm doing this because I believe that it's worth mentioning her activities outside of her acting career, and the Julia Stiles and Ian McKellen articles do this as well. Also, from all the articles and reviews I've read, I'd strongly argue that the negative quote about Anacondas just added (which now makes three negative for two positive, in my opinion a misrepresentation of the proportion of total negative to positive reviews) is most certainly not "typical of critical response to her performance". Reviews of Strickland's performance may not have been all positive, but they definitely were not mostly negative either. Extraordinary Machine 23:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Co-Relation

Big question, in the form of an example. If the entries for both Anything Else and The Sixth Sense don't mention Strickland, than why does her article mention these films and elaborate on them? Obviously, if Strickland's involvement in the films was not notable enough to mention in their own articles, it is not notable enough to mention these films in relation to Strickland. Can someone explain this to me? Or else I'm removing these, and a few other such examples where the Strickland article seems to dwell on details for no reason, since the articles for the films themselves don't even recognize Strickland. Vulturell 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems obvious that Strickland's involvement in the movies can be notable in her life, but not from the perspective of discussing the film. Also, this is a featured article and those are not -- if there is a problem of comprehensiveness, I would assume it lies in the film articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not worth the effort

I believe that the minor edits I made improved the article, but as you clearly feel differently and have made almost every edit on this one, it is not worth further effort to me. Doc 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is KaDee her legal name or a nickname?

I was looking through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). If KaDee is just a nickname, then the first line of the article should be something like:

Katherine Dee Strickland (born December 14, 1977) is an American actress, usually credited as KaDee Strickland.

--Fallout boy 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After looking around at her links, it apparently is just a nickname [8]. --Fallout boy 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on KaDee Strickland

There is an updated link regarding the Rel Dowdell Interview, here it is http://video2edit.com/RelDowdellInterview.html.

In regards to the discussion about Ray Colbert or the "interviewer" on the statement used about Ms. Strickland's status in Hollywood:

"Filmed on location in Philadelphia with a relatively unknown cast when this project began who are now major players in the industry: Wood Harris (HBO’s The Wire); MC Lyte (UPN’s Half and Half); Kadee Strickland (The Grudge, Anacondas); Anita Hawkins (Fallen, GreenWorks TV); Terrence "Tat Money" Thomas (one of Philly’s legendary DJs); Colby Colb (PM for 103.9); Johnnie Hobbs (Twelve Monkeys, Freedom Theater) and, of course the legendary Esther Rolle."

Since I wrote it, I should respond to it. The statement is an accurate assesment of the cast members. The cast, with the exception of Esther Rolle were basically unknown. By the way, MC Lyte and Tat Money were known in hip hop game and Colby Colb was known as a DJ in Philly.

Wood Harris and KaDee Strickland, since the making of Train Ride, have continually added more films and projects to their portfolio. What you define as a major player is probably someone who can get a film greenlit just by their name alone. That is not the purpose of video2edit.com. The site is focused on "up and coming artists" and the mere fact that an independent filmmaker can get their film produced and distributed makes them a major player in their own right. It may not be major by Hollywood's standard, but it is a major step forward in their career. The same goes for the actors. While some of you may not like Ms. Strickland's stlye of acting, the fact still remains that she is working regulary on building her filmography.

In any event, thanks for stopping by my website and reading the article.

Ray Colbert Producer/Technical Director www.video2edit.com

[edit] Filmography wrong way round

the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not be bold and make the edit yourself? -- MisterHand 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
have you seen how long the list is? i'm too lazy to make all those changes myself. Zzzzz 13:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out Zzzzz made changes to Wikipedia:Filmographies to support his argument and has made this same threat on many other pages. I find no consensus and encourage discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies to straighten this out before he delists all articles he can find to suit his personal style preference. Cburnett 03:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images?

I'm not sure what purpose is served by having multiple images (3 free, one fair use) in this article. One is fine for identification purposes, but in it's current incarnation this resembles a Maxim spread more than a encyclopedia article. Thoughts? -- MisterHand 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Maxim magazine or spreads — could you explain why you think the article resembles one? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Maxim is probably a bad example, People or US would be a better one. This article resembles a fluff piece where the written content is overshadowed by the photos, which are glamor shots that seem only to show off the attractiveness of the subject rather than add encyclopedic value. (I'm not arguing that the prose of this article is fluff -- just that with all the images it resembles those kids of pieces). -- MisterHand 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)