Talk:Sandra Romain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] References

Please think twice before adding an "interview" in a porno flick as a reference. Those "interviews" are notoriously unreliable and can't be trusted. Jerkface03 (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And the videos are also considered primary sources under WP:PSTS. Any edits citing to them must merely be descriptive and involve no analysis. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Over the past twelve years she has been one of the most prolific adult actresses in the industry. She is also noted for being particularly rough in her scenes, for example, slapping and hitting other performers." Vinh1313 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "In the spring of 2008 Sandra moved home to Romania and retired from adult industry because she wants to start a family with her husband of 12 years." This sentence also needs to be verified against a source. The information is probably not contentious so the reliability of the source is probably not going to be scrutinised. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the list of awards

Could anyone explain why it's necessary to have a whole separate list of Ms. Romain's awards and nominations. Unless I am in error, last I checked we didn't do this for mainstream actors like Susan Lucci or Kate Blanchett, so why do this for pornography actors? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Many reasons, really. Susan Lucci or Kate Blanchett don't exactly serve as a template for the ideal actress article. If I were their GA reviewer, I'd ask for the lists to be put in a separate article per WP:MOS. Having separate lists for entertainers is actually the norm, if you look around. Imagine how awful the Sandra Romain article would look with the list merged into it. I hope that answers your question. Epbr123 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, using the "show/hide" feature would work. Also, jumping ahead of Good Articles, I decided to check the Featured Articles main page. In doing so, I found that Bette Davis, Angelina Jolie, Jenna Jameson and Diane Keaton don't have awards list on separate pages -- and keep in mind these awards sections are have more than 5 awards, particularly Jameson's and Keaton's. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It all depends on how long the list is. With those articles, the lists are just about short enough to look ok in the main article, and are not long enough to deserve their own article. See WP:MOS for more info. Epbr123 18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, from looking at the list in Jenna Jameson, the article seemed to have had a rather lenient FA review. Many items in the list are missing citations, en dashes should be used instead of hyphens and there's no need for the years to be in bold. Epbr123 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Ack! I didn't cite something in Jenna Jameson? You're right. Horrors! Must fix. Do you think the years should be subsections of the Awards section? Nested indents? Or keep the structure the same, just unbold and cite? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I think either nested indents or just unbold. Short subsections should be avoided. Epbr123 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)