Talk:Geraldine Page

Light copyedit

 Quill and Pen (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I have been warned not too edit this article this is what was removed by a contributor

The following shows what was removed from this article by an editor: [[1]] and as you can see I did NOT remove referenced material. I did remove extraneous verbiage that was not needed. I don't think anyone particularly cares, or finds all that important, about whether Page did not show up for a performance. What is important is that she died and people were notified. Funeral attendance is important too as it shows how people within in her profession viewed her work. And for word smithing: A better choice of words would be died from a heart attack NOT died of a heart attack as written. The word from indicates a cause as in "The child suffers from asthma or she died from a heart attack." The word of expresses a relationship but not a cause as the word from does. Quill and Pen (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to remove sourced, relevant material, form a consensus before doing so. That is WP policy. Your own opinion about what people particularly care about is not relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What I did remove was extraneous words that added nothing to the article. As to relevancy: What is relevant to one person may not be to another...in this case you seem to dispute the relevancy and I don't agree with you. That's it in a nutshell. Quill and Pen (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean Up

I changed a sentence from Page did to Page performed. She performed in a series not did a series. I also broke down a long-winded, poorly written sentence. Once I made sense of the sentence I realized Page had received two Emmys for two different shows. The sentences now reflect this. Quill and Pen (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In doing so, you have misidentified the names of the awards. I have fixed this and provided citations, while still attempting to keep the sentences from becoming overly awkward. Grandpallama (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geraldine Page. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004223020/http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a;focusrgn=summaryinfo;cc=wiarchives;byte=50771135 to http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a;focusrgn=summaryinfo;cc=wiarchives;byte=50771135

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geraldine Page/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auldhouse (talk · contribs) 22:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be glad to review this article. Auldhouse (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I ran the article through Grammarly which picked up few minor copy edit and phrasing issues which I fixed. Auldhouse (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Good use of references and no issues. I fixed one dead link with an archive URL.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   This is a great article--I enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Page was one classy actress. Auldhouse (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Joe McCarthy

He had nothing to "Hollywood Blacklist", he investigated the State Dept. 2603:6000:D700:194D:1892:2DD:C5C9:5691 (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)