Talk:Polly Draper

Sister of Timothy C. Draper?

Is there a source for that? Mad Jack 07:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Draper

According to the IMBd message boards (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1822808/board/nest/65652611), Jesse is Polly's niece, not her daughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.79.30.171 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Written like a press release

This article has been hijacked by a user, ATC, who appears to be Polly Draper's publicist. There are WP:PUFFERY and WP:TONE issues, such as phrases like "producer such-and-such of The Godfather fame. You cannot write like that on Wikipedia. ATC also reverts in ways that violate WP:DATED by talking about Draper's "current" projects, and hyping her upcoming projects. ATC should be made aware that he or she is not allowed to remove the tags without consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not a publicist. Also I was following the format like the featured-class articles Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Are these articles also considered to be written like a press release? It's all factual writing so I am not quite sure what you mean. I will change the "of The Godfather fame" to "whose credits include The God Father fame" though. Also what tags have I removed--if you're referring to Jesse Draper being her niece I added a reliable source from The New York Times stating that. There is also no trivia writing either and where is there "hyping"? I've been editing Wikipedia long enough to know Wiki's policies and I don't see any of the issues that you are pointing out. ATC ^{. Talk} 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt's articles. Other stuff exists, and everything in a featured article may or may not be done correctly, especially with edits made after it became featured.

Factuality doesn't mean that every trivial detail, minor and insignificant award and bit part goes into the prose; there are issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. This article as you've written it is puffy, overly laudatory and in large part does not reflect the neutral tone of an encyclopedia. And your unilateral reversion to your own puffery smacks of article ownership.

For example: "I will change the "of The Godfather fame" to "whose credits include The God Father fame": No. That absolutely is not encyclopedic tone. That's magazine tone. This encyclopedia has bluelinks if a reader wants to know what someone's "fame" is for. As for removing tags, that was a preemptive note based on your ownership-style reversion to the press-release-like version. If another editor finds that your work has an inappropriate tone, the response isn't to own the article. It's to say to oneself: "Maybe I'm too close to my own work to see it objectively" and discuss things on the talk page.

And someone who's been editing Wikipedia for a long time should know very well that "currently" violates WP:DATED.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I realized you are correct about her upcoming project; until it's current and produced it should be left out, as per WP:DATED but wouldn't those featured articles lost notability already if it was written like a news article? Apparently it hasn't. I'm not comparing any random article. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I want to make this a great article for Wikipedia. Can you show me a Featured Article I could use as an outline? Thanks. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait it looked very similar when promoted as a featured article for Angelina Jolie. See here: [1]. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're discussing this, but I don't even know where to begin. Winning an Academy Award may be notable to state in a lead but awards from a couple of minor film festivals? A nomination, which isn't even an award? If you genuinely, honestly can't see the difference between the lead of Angelina Jolie and this — just giving these particular, limited examples — then isn't it possible that, like many people, you might not be the most objective person to look at your own writing? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Thirtysomething, she is also highly known for her work on The Tic Code and The Naked Brothers Band which should be mentioned in the lead section. I took into account what you said about the relevance of what awards to put. I kept the Writer's Guild of America (WGA) Award because isn't it equivalent to a Screen Actors Guild Award only for television? Please let me know if the lead section is better with the modifications I have made. Also, I am busy working in the real world and will not be able to reply for a week but I will be able to reply over the weekend. ATC ^{. Talk} 04:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly better, though you're still using hyperbole like "countless Off-Broadway plays" when in fact Off-Broadway is well-defined and there is an Off-Broadway database that gives an exact count of her Off-Broadway plays. Not to mention all the tangential name-dropping like "starred with Gregory Hines" or "starred with Mary-Louise Parker" that has nothing to do with Draper herself. And you are still exhibiting WP:OWN by essentially saying all edits to the article have to go through you. Draper is such a relatively obscure actress that unlike with the Clint Eastwood article, for examples, few editors come here and so it's easy to own. But that's not encyclopedic, that's not best-practices and it doesn't help an article or the subject when it reads like a press release. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Polly Draper/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Naked Brothers band is far from one of the most "extraordinary" films ever made. Mrs. Draper, please stop spewing misinformation - opinion does not = fact.

Last edited at 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Polly Draper. 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/20160316191630/http://www.vccircle.com/news/telecom/2008/10/15/next-tech-giant-will-be-cellphone-application-company-tim-draper to http://www.vccircle.com/500/news/next-tech-giant-will-be-a-cellphone-application-company-tim-draper
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219203806/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2653 to http://wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2653
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203085520/http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=3484 to http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=3484

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) 23:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)