Jump to content

Talk:Dana Delany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDana Delany was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Tags and Ratings

[edit]

It's getting tiresome seeing Tags slapped onto articles with no explanations, especially when the tags themselves require just that. If someone chooses to rate this article, please indicate the reasoning, or leave it to someone else. Granted there is an article that explains the general idea of the ratings, but then it's a guessing game as to how it applies. And if the response is "It should be obvious", well, assume it's not. x 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animaniacs

[edit]

I reverted a change about the Animaniacs, not because I think it's wrong, but because I'd like to see something specific as to how this correction is more accurate. E.G. what episode was she mentioned in, and what year was that ep made? My understanding is that though Animaniacs was indeed beng produced before Superman:TAS started, that additional new eps were made afterwards. Any specifics please? x 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Animaniacs started airing in 1993, and "Dana Delany" was used in the intro during the first season. (Here is a newsgroup reference to it from November 1993.) Superman TAS didn't start until 1996, almost three years later.
    While researching this, I noticed that Delany's official website makes the claim that the Animaniacs reference was based on her Superman work, and the large sections of the text has been copied almost exactly into this Wikipedia article. This appears to be a copyright violation, and should be remedied ASAP.
    --The Invisible Hand 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the response. Just wanted something verifiable. Actually Mask of the Phantasm was also in 93, there might be a connection there, but I have no confirmation for that.
and the large sections of the text has been copied almost exactly into this Wikipedia article yes I suppose that's one way of seeing it. However, my understanding is that they were both written by the same person at the same time (rphunt). Perhaps he could clarify the copyright status? x 18:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

[edit]

This isn't about Animaniacs -- but the list of film credits omits one of her guest performances on Cheers. Dana Delany played a kindergarten teacher, a love interest of Sam Malone. It must have been in the 1980s but I don't know the name of the episode. But I definitely saw her as a guest star on the situation comedy Cheers. I don't know how to put this in the credits since I don't have the full information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.86.208 (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone over the filmography and used a reference to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) (which had a much more thorough listing of all Dana's acting work) to update the filmography. The earlier Filmography omitted China Beach! so I put that in there, plus there were other films, voice-work, and TV credits that were added. So hopefully it is more up to date now. I figured out how to add a new line within a year. The key is making sure the "rowspan" number is right, and then playing with it to see if the grid comes out right. For example, if you're adding a film to 2002, it will say rowspan=2 if there are, say, two films she did that year; but if you're adding a new film, you have to make it say rowspan=3 because there will be three films. I copied and pasted the vertical line (there isn't one on my keyboard). There's a trial-and-error process and if you stick with it, it's not that hard to edit these grid boxes. Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page is not really meant to be used as a diary for edits, or instructions on Wiki syntax. It's meant for discussing how the related article can be improved as a Wiki article, or to present a case for an edit that might be questioned. Just adding more items to a Filmography would not normally need to be explained. x (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment; I'm a neophyte editor just learning the ropes. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Lane as a notale role for Dana Delany

[edit]

Though Lois Lane is a notable and iconic character in popular culture, I disagree that Dana is particularly noted for this voice over role, which is my understanding to be the intent of that section. x 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Frankly, this is a point-of-view statement (with no real evidence on the contrary) that was made. Also you seem to be contradicting yourself when you say that she isn't really "noted" for her voice-over work as Lois Lane, even though she's been doing it for a long time. TMC1982 8:56 p.m., 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lois Lane is a fairly iconic character in popular culture (being an important part in the Superman, the most recognizable superhero of all-time, mythos). TMC1982 1:13 p.m., 1 May 2007 (UTC)


TMC1982 1:19 p.m., 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree with your assessment but we should stick to making a great wikipedia article Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe, but that's neither here nor there. The question before us is whether Dana Delaney is notable for her work doing voice-over as Lois Lane. You, TMC1982, are the only one who seems to be arguing that she is, and as a result the onus is on you to show, via reliable sources, that she is notable. Otherwise, it will continue to be pulled out. Tabercil 04:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think Delany's Lois Lane should be listed as a notable role. It's as least as notable as her shorter lived role on China Beach. I'm not sure you realize this, but Superman: The Animated Series and the rest of the series that tie into DC_animated_universe have an enormous fanbase, which is due in no small part to the award winning series' character based scripts and a-list voice talent. DVDs from the series are consistent sellers at amazon.com; and, to the best of my knowledge, China Beach hasn't even been released in a digital format yet. Here's a rudimentary Google test, where I run "Delany" first with "South Beach", and then with "superman" and "animated":
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=%22dana+delany%22+%22china+beach%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22dana+delany%22+superman+animated&btnG=Search
For all of the acclaim Delany received for South Beach, I only see a 20% difference in hits. Of course, it's only a Google test; but such tests can sometimes be useful to show trends. If one compares the number and depth of fansite coverage afforded each show, Superman blows Beach out of the water, and I do refer to this specific, animated incarnation.
For comparable situations on Wikipedia, notice that:
  • Again, it's not about the character being notable. It's about whether it was a role Dana was notable for. And examples of what was done in other articles doesn't really matter (that's like finding a word mis-spelled in other articles and using that as a reason to continue that mis-spelling). And again, when Dana is mentioned in journalism, her role on China Beach is almost invariably cited, but Lois Lane almost never. Google hits? C'mon. Since when is that a valid source? x 03:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, voice acting has made up a significant portion of Delany's career I'm not sure about significant portion. It may only be a significant portion of what you know about her. infobox is more than large enough for two notable roles It's not really a space issue. It's about the infobox containing the basic stuff it's supposed to, and letting the actual article do the rest. And yes, I've read that interview, and it's great, but it's just an interview, and actually it makes the point that her work as Lois is not generally noted. x 09:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the interview; but I still think an actor's 2nd longest running, most sustained role, which in this case happens to have been on Superman and Justice League, two massively popular TV shows, would be considered a significant portion of anyone's career, especially when the 1st and 2nd positions dwarf the others. I concede that her Lois might not be notable, though. I really didn't mean to troll. Keep up the good work. Ichormosquito 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About this whole issue of Lois Lane being a notable role for Dana. I agree she does a great job of being a voice talent in this role, but I kind of agree that her voice-work for Lois Lane is not what makes her famous; rather, what makes her famous is her China Beach role (2 Emmys) and now the Kathering Mayfair role in Desperate Housewives. I think those two TV shows are the most notable career accomplishments so far but I think she's a superb actress (actor?) who may yet do something huge. But my sense is the voice-talent for Lois Lane stuff for "The Batman" doesn't belong in the first paragraph (I had trouble finding a good reference for "The Batman" without "The Batman Superman...", but the Lois Lane stuff does belong in the body of the article, and I agree she has a great voice. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad you like Dana's work, but the discussion page isn't for talking about that (it's for talking about the article, not the subject of the article). If you feel Batman no longer needs to be in the first paragraph, then change it (as time goes by, the main highlights of someone's career do change), and possibly supply a rationale in the discussion page (concisely, please). x (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Yes, I'm leaning towards removing the Batman stuff from the first paragraph (I think shorter is better in 1st para), BUT possibly adding "voice work" to this paragraph -- so the main things she's noted for would be -- stage, movies, television and voice; but I'm loathe to mess too much with the first paragraph without checking with other editors. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coyne and Delany

[edit]

I've removed this sentence:

Dana's great-grandfather John J. Delany founded the Coyne & Delany toilet valve company in 1879.[citation needed]

as it's not really about her personal or public life, it's more a trivia item about her family. Maybe a trivia section is needed? x (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your reasoning for removing the detail about her great-grandfather; if you're a guy, chances are you've seen the word "Delany" on toilets (I have); still, I think it's an interesting detail that perhaps should appear somewhere in this article. I like the idea of a trivia section. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

More information (from a trivia site) about the flush valve in case you want to include it: Toilet flush valves. The Delany Flush Valve is a diaphragm valve used on commercial toilets not equipped with water tanks. This type of valve and plumbing mechanism is used almost universally in commercial and public restroom facilities. The Coyne & Delany Company was founded in 1879 by John J. Delany and Thomas Coyne, and is located in Charlottesville, Virginia; they have a web site at www.coynedelany.com. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

One other thing about Coyne-Delany flush valves. Other sites featuring Dana Delany with biographies usually mention the flush valve connection. Yahoo movies described her as the granddaughter of the inventor of the flush valve (not great granddaughter). So I think we should consider taking a cue from other sites and including it -- plus, I think it's an interesting factoid. Check out yahoo movies: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800025956/bio Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

News about Desperate Housewives

[edit]

I've removed this:

Delany, along with the cast, was nominated at the 14th Annual Screen Actor's Guild Award for Best Ensemble in a Comedy Series. Because she has received such critical and commercial acclaim for her role on the show, it is widely speculated that this role will earn Delany yet another Emmy this year.

It reads more like a news item than as enclopedic content, is a bit gossipy, refers to present and future tenses which is preferred to be avoided in WP articles, and some of it is POV.x (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a good choice to remove this -- it does sound newsy, and it won't be important in a year or so from now. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

China Beach Soundtrack

[edit]

I've removed this:

In 1990, she was featured on the hard to find China Beach soundtrack album "Music & Memories" singing the song "Far From Home."

It's kind of a digression where it was placed, maybe it could be added as trivia in a separate section? Also, make it less POV. x (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo?

[edit]
  • She doesn't look like that anymore ... I had trouble recognising her

--Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the photo should be changed but my issue isn't that the photo doesn't look like Dana, but rather that it's a side shot which doesn't fully reflect her beauty; better shot is a full-on face shot but where she's looking to the side. I think we should change the photo. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Possible Stuff to include in the article

[edit]

I'm thinking there should be more in this article about how Dana looks at film-making, television, success. Right now the article only lists her accomplishments (she starred in this, she did this movie, etc.) But the article could be improved (in my view) with her thoughts about being an actress, about technique; and this stuff is out there. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Great quote from People magazine article in April 1991: "Always get a good haircut," she (Dana) advises, and little wonder. When Delany tried out as nurse Colleen McMurphy on China Beach, she was shown the door. "They thought I wasn't pretty enough," she explains. Then director Paul (American Gigolo) Schrader asked her to cut her long tresses into a bob to play a terrorist in Patty Hearst. After the China Beach producers lost their first choice, they saw delovely Delany a new and flipped—as soon did much of America. Now Schrader is having Delany trimmed again, this time to play an ex-junkie in his Light Sleeper. Even if lightning doesn't strike twice, Delany is secure in her looks. "I know my weak points," she says. "But I've thought I was attractive since I was a girl because my father thought I was. He must have been kind. I was always cute, but I was a butterball." Source: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20063419,00.html

Marital/Family history

[edit]

Marital/Family history and current status is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.89.7 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the marital family history stuff is interesting and perhaps should be in there. I don't think she has yet married, but she had interesting relationships with famous people (possibly Treat Williams, Henry Czerny, others), and this is the kind of stuff (unfortunately) that people are interested in. If memory is right, I think her parents divorced when she was, perhaps, 18, and did this have any influence on her life? Is this the kind of stuff that typically appears in biographies of actors -- I think it is. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Information from a website (not necessarily a good source) about Dana's early family life: Dana Welles Delany was born on March 13, 1956. She was raised in Stamford, Connecticut and Charlottesville, Virginia. She was born in New York, New York. Dana was born in Manhattan, and spent most of her childhood living in Stamford. Her parents divorced when Dana was 16, after which she moved to Charlottesville with her father and siblings. Dana has one sister (an interior designer) and one brother (an attorney). Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Here's more information from the source uk.askmen.com --> Although Dana has had several long-term relationships -- and a reportedly not so long-term one with Treat Williams -- she remains unattached. "I honestly haven't found the right guy," she explains. Dana has come to realize that her career isn't everything, since "I've reached a place with my work where I'm ready to concentrate more on life." Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

More information from Movietome about Dana's thinking about marriage -- Dana is very close to her sister. She said on The View (December of 2007) that her sister's 30 year marriage has broken up and she was taking her on holiday for the 2007 Christmas. When she appeared on The View in December of 2007, Dana admitted that getting married and having children has never been a priority for her. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

More information from Movietome to consider adding to the article (about Dana commenting on her personal life): Dana: I like people who are still actively creating in their life, who aren't set, I don't feel like I'm set. And I don't have any baggage, for better or worse. I don't have any plants or pets or kids. I can lock the door and go. I need to be with somebody for whom that's okay. Dana: Marriage has never been a big deal for me, but I think I'm ready now. Before, I wanted adventures. I feel like, in some ways, I was smarter than anybody. I got to have all the fun in the world, to experience a lot of people and figure out what I really like. I got to evolve. Now I know what makes me happy Dana: I've been dating younger men since my 20s, When I was 29, I dated someone 21… younger men are just more fun. I like their energy. I've always been kind of young for my age. Dana: Television is more of a business. You can't take as many risks, because there's so many channels now, and the advertising's dropping. Dana: I have faith in my imperfections! Dana (on joining the cast of "Desperate Housewives"): It was a little bit like trying to board a train that’s left the station. But I’ve been around a long time, and I’ve never worked on a show that’s run so smoothly. All the kinks are worked out. Whatever rumors there were in the past, the actresses have worked it all out. Dana (on Christoper Reeve): Chris was an old friend of mine from my early days in New York. There's something about him in that role (Superman) that was just meant to be. He never shined more (as an actor) than when he was playing that part. And certainly after the accident, he rose to the integrity of that role. I think he surprised all of us (with) how amazing he was. He's one of those guys you look at and go 'there but for the grace of G-d'; I don't know that I could have done the same in his situation. Dana: In Europe the parents are included as with children. All three generations are together. I'm thinking of Italy. You go out on a Sunday afternoon and the whole family is there. Dana: I'm the worst rider. I'm a terrible rider. Me and horses are not a good mix. For some reason, people are always trying to get me on a horse in a movie. Dana: (talking about crying on camera) Once I hit my 40's, I found it very, very easy to cry. There is something about hitting midlife. It's not really a sign of sadness when I cry. I'm just grateful to be alive. Dana: We all know that television is better for women as they get into their 40s. You could be more three-dimensional, not just the wife or the mother. Dana: I've reached a place with my work where I'm ready to concentrate more on life. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Great quotes for possible consideration about putting it in the article. The source was Movietome. Here they go: Dana: I love being on stage or in front of the camera. My work brings me a lot of joy. It helps me figure out who I am. I'm really lucky that I get to make a living at acting. Dana: I think I would make a good spy. I can sort of be a chameleon. People don't notice me very easily. I never get recognized. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Update: I removed several paragraphs from HERE (on this Talk page, not the article) about DD's brother, sister, past relationships, as editors such as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz & Tabercil have convinced me it's irrelevant, uncheckable, lacking good sources, (and Xtramental likes less reading). Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

I think this stuff is interesting and helps round out the article, gives the article life, but I don't think we should focus too much on it. I'm thinking one line in the personal section listing some of the boyfriends (without dates) and listing yahoo as the source. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Update: my current thinking is we should leave all the boyfriend stuff OUT (based on sensible advice from Tabercil and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) because as they point out, the sources which provide this information are shaky, so the information may be wrong, and even while I find it is interesting, we have to really only include neutral POV which is relevant and based on good sources. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Early Work

[edit]

In the "early work" section, there was no information about her appearances on TV soap operas or possibly early Broadway work -- rather, after college, it jumps right into 1988 (10 years later) with her first big big break -- getting the role on "China Beach". I think there should be more information about how she learned how to act (did she take lessons with Stanislavski) and how she made the transition to television in Hollywood. Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Here's source material from a trivia site about her early years as an actress: she got a theatrical degree in Wesleyan University graduating 1978. She starred in two daytime soap operas: "As the World Turns" and "Love of Life". Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Question

[edit]

I was wondering what to do when some of the movies listed appear in red. This means as we know that the movie (for example, Baby For Sale) doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Should we (1) leave the movie there in red with the hope that somebody in future might create a Wikipedia page for this movie or (2) remove the brackets (and leave the single-quote mark symbols) so that the name of the movie appears in italics, but not in blue (or red). If somebody knows what to do here, please advise. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Update -- excellent editor ShelfSkewed said how to handle Redlinks is a matter of opinion, but leans towards leaving it in since it indicates a possible future article that future wikipedia editors may wish to write. So I am siding with ShelfSkewed about this unless I get more information. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

See WP:REDLINK. They should stay if there is a chance that they are notable enough for an article. As for TV movies, they generally are not notable enough for an article and therefore would remain red for all time. In that case, it's best to remove the brackets. And as far as their inclusion in filmographies, many editors would say to take them out of there as well citing the fact that we aren't IMDb. Personally, I'm on the fence about that. Dismas|(talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, magnificent Dismas. So I'm thinking that I'll probably remove the brackets from the TV movies so they no longer become redlinks (but keep the two apostrophes on either side so it remains in italics). Trouble is, I sometimes forget which are the TV movies and which are "real" movies, so I may be somewhat hesitant about this, (probably do only the TV movies I'm sure of) and the distinction is somewhat blurry because some movies made for cinemas get moved to TV, and vice-versa. I'm agreeing with you about being on the fence about what to include in the filmography, although I lean towards keeping everything in, so that possibly wikipedia will be seen as the most thorough source around (and better than IMDb). Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
Update the excellent Tabercil removed the redlinks and the article looks SO much better. There were even pink-link thingies in there which are now gone. (Pink? What's with that?) This is hard work to get these out and it's appreciated, as well as handling disambiguations and spacings (I'll try to get references spaced tighter in future -- I've been working on article about Vanuatu.) Wondering how we can get better pictures in the article because text and charts are so boring by contrast, particularly when we have a great looking subject like DD. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
Pink links?? My guess? They might have been redlinks you tried clicking through on. As for pics, well that's one of the harder jobs going, and part of how I managed to snag admin rights on Commons as I've had some luck sweet-talking others into providing images. Tabercil (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you probably tried to click on some of them. I know that when I click on a red link, it will appear as pink-ish when I go back to the original article. And the blue turn purple after visiting them. Dismas|(talk) 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Nominations Section Added

[edit]

I noticed how Eva Longoria had an awards and nominations section and Dana didn't, so I copied Longoria's and updated it with Emmy, Golden Globe and Q award information. I bet there are other awards Dana has won. Does anybody know what they are? If so, please add them. It's a little tricky to modify the box, but just remember to copy a whole chunk, beginning with the first vertical line to the left, and which ends with a vertical line followed by a minus sign. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Wondering if awards like in 1998, Wesleyan presented Dana with a Distinguished Alumni Award in recognition for her professional accomplishments. Should this be included with awards like Emmys and Golden Globes? Probably not, but wondering if we should put it in elsewhere? Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

There are probably other awards -- Prism awards, Screen Actors Guild awards (SAG) that need to be researched, and included. I haven't had time to do this yet. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Notable Achievements Section Added too

[edit]

I noticed Marcia Cross has an "additional achievements" section with things like being one of the most beautiful people in a certain year, a magazine naming her "woman of the year, etc. I think Dana needs one too. So I lifted the format from Marcia Cross's page (I hope she won't be cross about this -- sorry very bad pun) and we should put stuff about Dana in there, plus have a note at the bottom about the references. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

There are CERTAINLY other notable achievements that can be put in here. I haven't yet fully researched them. But things like magazine endorsements. I wonder if there's any database which tracks how often stars are featured on the covers of prominent magazines? Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Update: this section has been removed since there was only one line. But if more awards and nominations are found by future researchers, and you want to put it back in, then consider doing this. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Fixing the Categories

[edit]

I think the article is getting much better, the information is solid with excellent references, but the subcategories are somewhat off. There's a section called "Voice work" which interrupts the early career and later career stuff (but I agree with editors who think Dana's voice work is important and should be emphasized, although I don't think it should be included as a major section, but rather mixed into the chronological sections). But it's like the format switches gears mid-stream (sorry about mixing metaphors) from chronology to type of work (ie voice), and I hope we could get something which is more logically consistent, as well as helping readers find information that they need quickly. And I think all of it could be better organized somehow. I think most biographies have a chronological format, from early to current, and this is the best choice. I'm wondering: what categories can we have which keeps the chronological format while emphasizing the voice work? I've been researching this actress for some time now and my sense is that she's not a lightweight pretty face type actress but a serious, intense heavy-duty one who can master tough roles, a powerhouse who loves acting but sometimes gets snared in frivolous projects, and the consistent thing about her career is: a love of acting. That's what she loves. And I don't think things like friendships or causes should have their own section but rather should be included in the chronology when they're relevant and appropriate. But here's my sense of her career goes something like this --

I. early life (birth, schooling)

II. New York City -- breaking into the business 

  Soap operas
  Broadway (critical reviews)
  Off-Broadway (critical attention)
  Key friendships and connections (Christopher Reeve, for example)

III. Early Hollywood years (TV guest starring spots, China Beach) -- establishing herself as a major actress 

  TV guest starring spots (showcasing her talent)
  China Beach (should include: how did she get this role? should get its own paragraph I think, mentioning Emmys plus critical attention)
  Movies
  TV movies
  Voice work (The Batman/Superman, Lois Lane, fan reactions, critical acclaim -- Why Dana = major voice talent)
  Relationships (there are dates so we could put this in where appropriate)

IV. Later Hollywood years -- pursuing acting 

  More TV work (sitcoms that didn't get off the ground, critical reviews, etc)
  Other projects (narrating, Vietnam nurses, audio books)
  Guest spots on talk shows
  Dana-as-a-celebrity (being a presenter in awards shows, talk show appearances, interactions with fans)
  Causes (scleroderma, other causes)
  Relationships/personal

V. Filmography

VI. Awards

VII. Notable achievements

VIII. References

So, my question to other editors is: do you like this organizational scheme? Or can we think of something better? I'm interested in getting feedback from excellent wikipedia editors such as yourself. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Wow... lots of work done since I edited it last. Two things jumped out immediately - well three actually: 1. the images are presented in a non-standard format (just a frame with captions is the norm), 2. the Desperate Housewives image that was on Commons shouldn't've been there (and I've gone and deleted that since I'm an admin on Commons), and 3. if anything I think you've gone overboard with the cites. A simple mention of a film appearances generally doesn't need a cite in my opinion... but any discussion regarding said role should have one. So for instance, I'd probably remove all the cites found in the paragraph starting with "Leveraging this newfound fame..." And there's generally no spacing between punctuation and the cite, nor any spacing between the cites themselves. Look closely at some of the other feature articles that are biographies for what I mean; the full list can be found at WP:FA but some examples are Judy Garland, Jackie Chan and Angelina Jolie.
Now, regarding the proposed layout, I think it works. I only have one nits to pick - one is that "Notable Achievements" section. Since there's only one item in there, I'd move the 50 Most Beautiful bit up into the main text into its proper chronological place and delete the full section. The only other item I'd want to warn you about is sourcing for the relationships... make sure they are reliably sourced. The four cites after the sentence "Dana is single and has been linked romantically with prominent male celebrities" all lead to the same Yahoo biography, which is not a good source IMO. Tabercil (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tabercil, for your excellent comments. I think you're right about me going overboard with the citations -- what happened was the notice "Not enough reliable sources" kept appearing on the top of the page, and I thought I had to keep adding references to make it go away; finally, I figured out that I could remove the "Not enough reliable sources" tag (and I did). But I didn't know about the spacing. You're saying I should remove many of the citations (but keep the best ones) right? Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
Yup. If the cite is merely to support her being in the movie/film, remove it. What you generally need to cite is the unusual or controversial. Again, look at the other articles, see what they cite and what they let pass without it. Tabercil (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Tabercil, wow, I love the Judy Garland and Angelina Jolie articles -- so beautiful, so professionally done. That's kind of what I'd like to do for Dana Delany if its possible, although maybe she's not famous enough yet to merit that kind of attention. Thanks for removing the bad image -- I added it because I got tired of looking at the long boring filmography (but it's up-to-date now and accurate -- I think wikipedia has the most authoritative filmography on Dana now). Are there any other pictures we could put in there to make it less boring to look at? But I don't know how to put pictures in or where to get them from. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
Well take a look at my edit, see how I did it. If you need more info, read Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. As for picture sources, that's perhaps the hardest item of the lot. A good source is Flickr - I've had good luck finding suitable images on there. You'll need to first up try and make sure that the person who has the picture is actually the person who took it, then you'll need to see if the license on it is suitable for use on Wikipedia. See here for more details. If you're uncertain about what to do with Flickr, let me know and I'll give you a hand. Tabercil (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, check with me before contacting anyone on Flickr... I've done a ton of emailing folks there just now trying to sweet-talk some folks into changing the license, so I just want to make sure we don't duplicate our efforts. Tabercil (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying go ahead with the layout, so perhaps I will in the next day or so, but if you could help me with it by looking over what I do, it would be appreciated, because I'm really a neophyte. About the "notable achievements" -- I thought by this time that I'd find more (but I didn't) in my researching so maybe I'll put it in with the text and delete the section, as you suggested. I was hoping to get the filmography more condensed (it seems to run on and on) but I don't know how to collapse it into two columns like in the reference section. About the "significant others" -- maybe you're saying remove the entire line (?) including the references? I agree. Another user Hullabaloo Wolfowitz wondered whether the sources were accurate, so to be safe, maybe we should omit all mention of "significant others"? And I'm agreeing with you about the "Yahoo biography" -- probably not such a great reference, after thinking about it. So, wondering if you might look at Dana Delany again in a few days and tell me what you think? Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
Sure. One word of advice: try and make multiple edits at once. It makes things easier for others. <G> Tabercil (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update on the editing and the categories. I tried rewriting the article and using the categories which I had laid out. But my nice categories, which looked good as a theory, didn't work well in the actual article. Some were too short -- like a subheading with only a few lines (yikes). Others too long. And I found it hard to break things up by type of work, since she keeps doing several types of work -- TV acting, movies, stage, voice. So the logical way to break it up I think is chronological by decade -- this is where I have it now -- but I'm wondering if this is the best way to organize it. I'm still not that happy with the organizational structure and if other editors can think of something better, let's fix it. So, I reorganized the article, kept most of the text intact but added new information, changed some wordings around (not that many), added more critical commentary and description of the actual movies themselves, took the excellent Tabercil's suggestion and moved the "Notable Achievements" into the text, didn't change the Filmography (which I think is the most accurate thing out there on the web -- better than IMDb I think). I'd LOVE to get more pictures of Dana, as well as the quote from Playboy if possible, but right now I have other stuff to do, so probably won't be working on this article for a while. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

A few nits to pick

[edit]

Since you, Tomwsulcer, seem to be using this article as a learning experience, I thought I'd just pick a few nits for you by suggesting some small corrections. And maybe you'll learn a bit more as you go...

  • External links should be either references or in the external links section. They should not be links within the text similar to internal links to other articles. This is point #2 from the Important Points to Remember section of WP:EL: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. So when the article says that person X founded "such and such foundation", the name of the foundation should not be linked to their homepage.
I'm still not sure what is meant by avoiding "external links" -- I looked over the external links thingie on the Wikipedia page and got the basic idea to avoid external links in the text of the article. But, in terms of references, external links are okay, is this right? So in my recent editing, I removed many of the duplicate references, and tried to put references at the end of lines and not right after the name of a TV show or movie. So, I don't think the article currently has any external links in the text (possible exception: Scleroderma foundation -- is this okay?). Also, in a reference to the "Knowing Her" episode of Moonlighting, one of the references is a link to YouTube (showing part of this TV show). So I'm not sure if this is okay, if this constitutes a "reference" or an "external link", and what the wikipedia policy is. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
  • Credited appearances in films and television shows as well as interviews or cover shots on magazines basically serve as their own reference. So when saying that "Delany appeared in XX from 19XX - 19XX...", you don't need to cite it.
OK, I removed many duplicate references, or put them at the end of the line. When I thought there might be controversy, sometimes I kept multiple references. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
  • Making several changes in one edit instead of making several small edits is preferred. It's easier for other editors to go through the history to see when a particular change was made if they don't have to slog through hundreds of minor edits by the same person. If you are going to work on an article for a period of more than just a couple minutes, I'd suggest putting the {{inuse}} template at the top of the article. But don't forget to take it off when you are done for the day/hour/etc since people will assume the article is being worked on for however long the template is at the top of the page.
OK, did this all at once, as per your suggestion, thanks. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
  • Avoid using the subject's first name when referring to them. You (I assume) and the reader are not on a first name basis with Dana Delany, so using her first name is too personal. And biographies seldom ever refer to their subjects by first name. Although, if the article is discussing her parents and her siblings, then it is good to use first names since everyone is likely named "Delany" and saying "Delany this and Delany that..." could get confusing. See WP:SURNAME
OK, changed many "Dana" references to "Ms. Delany" or "Dana Delany" as per your suggestion; hopefully all the unattached Dana words are removed. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
  • Names of newspapers, books, magazines, films, tv shows, and albums should be in italics. Names of shorter/smaller works such as tv show episode titles, magazine articles, and songs should be in "double quotes". See MOS:TITLE

These, along with Tabercil's suggestions, should make for a pretty solid article. Oh, and if you need a quote from her interview in the August '94 issue of Playboy, let me know. The issue is in my collection. Dismas|(talk) 09:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you excellent Dismas for the excellent advice. I reread it several times to try to learn. Thanks for the italics and "quotes" conventions so TV show Moonlighting with episode "Knowing Her", (practicing). I'll remove unnecessary citations (the excellent Tabercil agrees there are too many). The first name usage was there before me but I didn't edit it out and perhaps thought it was permissible to keep using this convention (I'll change to last name). Not sure about external links point but I'll follow that link to see what you're getting at. And I'll try to do more editing at once using the in-use tag template (thanks). I am hoping in a day or so you might look over the Dana Delany article after I edit it and make sure it's up to wikipedia's standards? I'm planning to re-order it somewhat (but keep what's there basically), improve it along the lines that the excellent you and the excellent Tabercil and the excellent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz suggest, possibly add some new stuff with references. But after that I'm probably not going to fuss with this any more since I have other stuff I should be doing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Critical commentary

[edit]

I've been researching newspapers and reputable sources for good critical commentary. It's always positive. I have yet to come across a critic who said Dana really screwed up a role but I keep searching (and if I find it, I'll put that in, because I'm trying to be balanced and fair). Note: one unofficial critic described DD as "seriously bad" in Tombstone but I didn't think this reviewer was associated with a reputable newspaper or magazine. What happens is this: Dana tends to go for complex, dark, multi-faceted roles with good writing, but these TV shows don't hit the mass market -- the shows are liked by critics, but the public can't follow them, and they get canned. Or, the show screws up, or the director, or any number of factors screw things up. Many projects she's worked on have not panned out, but this is how the business works I suppose (I don't think it's her fault). But China Beach was one of the critically-acclaimed TV shows which tried to find an audience -- it lasted for 3 years surprisingly -- and then went down the tubes (perhaps by bad choices by the producers in the third year?) Ditto, Pasadena -- great TV show, too intellectual for the public, but Dana was great in it. Then, she'll appear in mass market fodder like Desperate Housewives which tends to be dumbed down (but Dana still does a good job of acting). But this stuff gets her lots of attention and helps her keep acting -- and that I think is the dominant principle at work -- she loves acting -- that's it -- I don't think she's in it for the celebrity or money or fame -- rather, she loves the process of acting, and she's VERY good at it, not just a pretty face. What do other editors think about this? And does this article convey this? I think there was one TV show where I thought she was miscast -- something about her playing an FBI agent -- I remember seeing it myself back in the 1980s and thinking "hey, she's not an FBI agent", but I can't find critical commentary on this. But I'm looking for more interview like stuff in which she describes her thoughts about acting, celebrity, show business, and such, and I think this will help improve the article. Right now, I'm doing Google searches within a newspaper's site (so hopefully whatever I find will have a reputable source) and then see if any of it is worth putting in the article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Update on critical commentary and general work on the article: I continued searching for negative reviews about Dana's performance, from established critics (newspapers, TV channels, other reputable sources) but really haven't found any. I found some great interviews in which she speaks openly about her life, acting. This stuff is interesting to me, and I interspersed some of her comments in the article so it makes it more lively, more well-rounded, like Dana's take on playing Katherine Mayfair. I added about how she turned down the role of Carrie in Sex and the City, supported by two references. Overall I think the article is getting stronger, more specific, more interesting but I still am not totally happy with the organizational format and I'd love to see more pictures. I wonder how to get information about her theater work at Wesleyan University? She must have done some interesting stuff there. Plus, there is information about her parents' rather tough divorce -- quotes from Dana herself about this -- and how it may have impacted her views on marriage; I think this stuff is interesting but I'm wondering whether the sources are strong enough to justify inclusion into the article. I'm wondering what other editors such as the illustrious Tabercil and the illustrious Dismas think about this. Also, if there's great information from a Playboy article (Tabercil said this or Dismas, I can't remember) -- if I can get this, I'll put stuff in if you like. Also, I'm noticing inconsistencies in the article, like sometimes a show is properly listed with italics and in color, sometimes it isn't. Also, I think we should consider putting the stuff about the Coyne-Delany flush valve back in (if editors agree?) because I think it's an interesting factoid; Dana has commented herself in interviews about the valve, and it positions her somewhat in a historical context within US history, that is, she comes from a somewhat-established entrepreneurial business family. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]


References -- too many?

[edit]

Editors might notice that sometimes there are three or four references following a line. I put in lots of references because I thought this was the only way to get the Wikibots to remove the tag which complained about lack of references -- and the tag or flag stayed there (and I kept adding references) until I finally realized that I, myself, could remove the tag (which I did). Not one of my more brilliant moments, sorry. The excellent Tabercil suggested that some references can be removed, so other editors might want to do this, hopefully keeping the BEST references, and when there's a controversial quote, or something which may be disputed (especially like DD's decisions to turn down big roles) I think it's better to leave more references in, to back up what the article is about. But the excellent Tabercil suggests references may not be needed when it's just a line about "Delany made such and such a movie in 1991". My bias is to kind of reference everything but I'm probably overdoing things. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Problem with Movie Link -- There are two "Choices of the Heart" films

[edit]

Clicking on "Choices of the Heart" leads to the incorrect 1983 "Choices of the Heart" movie, not the 1995 "Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story". There is a Wikipedia page for the 1983 movie but none for the 1995 movie. Not sure what to do here -- is it worth creating a wikipedia page for the 1995 movie? Or remove the brackets around the words "choices of the heart" in the DD article? Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

The best option is to create the article, and correct the link. Second best is to remove the link. x (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Wikipedia page for "Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story" (1995); plus I fixed the link in the DD article; so now it points to the right place. I'm not sure how to do the disambiguation stuff -- there are two movies with pretty much the same title. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Getting better pictures

[edit]

I think there are better pictures of Dana available -- this side shot is okay but I'm wondering if people think we can't find a better picture. Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

About an alternative picture: I think the picture of Dana as Katherine Mayfair is much more accurate than the current picture. Plus there are probably no copyright issues since the picture is already working for the "Katherine Mayfair" wikipedia page. I think we should switch the picture but I would prefer if other editors make this decision. Plus, I'm not that familiar with how to get the technical stuff right. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

I copied information from the Katherine Mayfair page:

Note: removed extra stuff from Katherine Mayfair photo Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

I noticed on Eva Longoria's page there are TWO pictures -- so why can't we have two pictures of Dana? And I can copy the one from the Katherine Mayfair wikipedia article and use the whole thing becuase it's relevant and formatted and it will make the whole article more visually appealing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Note: I added pictures from the Wikimedia Commons (so no copyright problems) because the whole thing has expanded (with longer filmography, references, notable achievements) and it looks boring without something visual on there. So now there are more pictures of Dana so it's doesn't look like a market research report. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Update on pictures: as I write, there are three working pictures of Dana in the article, down from four (one picture of her as Katherine Mayfair got yanked by the Tabercil because of some copyright problems I was unaware of -- so good that we're not doing anything wrong here). Still, I think pictures improve the look of this article and I think if we can get more pictures in it, the article will be more fun to look at (and hopefully to read too). So if other editors can help here with how to get them, put them in, without violating copyright stuff, please go ahead. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Noticed great pictures from Tabercil. Great! Makes the article look SO much better! Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

I just want to point out some misconceptions about editing a Wiki article that I might see here.
  • Just because you see something done in another article doesn't mean it should be done, or even that it follows Wiki policy. It's always possible that article needs fixing. Make sure you understand Wiki policy first, as that always takes priority.
  • Visual appeal is irrelevant to a Wiki article. Wiki articles are meant to be informative in an encyclopedic manner, not necessarily entertaining. I.E. looking "like a market research report" is a non-issue. But if it reads like one, maybe the writing needs adjustment. Images should be strictly for information purposes.
  • In the discussion page, please cut back on rhetoric.

Hope this helps. x (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for advice. About my lengthy "rhetoric" -- while I'm a handyman, I also write, and writing LESS actually takes MORE TIME. (I'll strive for brevity). About pictures -- I disagree "visual appeal is irrelevant". Pictures are informative, convey much information, enhance the whole viewing experience. And getting people to read and look at articles (as a wiki policy) trumps any "visual appeal is irrelevant" policy, in my view. We live in a media age. I'd love to see much bigger pictures. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Pictures -- General problem

[edit]

General problem with Dana Delany pictures is pictures don't show her acting but are posed after-event celebrity shots or getting awards. There are only eight (8) shots of DD on the Commons. And I think the posed shots are misleading because DD's career isn't about celebrity or awards but acting. Removed address/phone of DD's talent agency. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

with a simple request: please UPLOAD pictures of Dana acting in various roles to Wikipedia's Commons site at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and make sure to fill out the copyright permissions and tags and descriptors so we can improve her article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

I want to slim down my wordy comments from this talk page -- OK?

[edit]

Wondering if anybody minds. I tend to type too much and want to cut out much of my former junk. If nobody objects, I'll whittle down my OWN (nobody else's) stuff so this talk page doesn't get too long. Okay? Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dana Delany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


A disclaimer: Actually I've done a lot of editing of this article in the past, but I've seen a large amount of recent edits being done, which might fail the Stability requirement as mentioned in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations (even if not specifically a result of an edit war).

A lot of these edits, though copious in information and probably accurate, don't seem fit the standards that I understand to be applicable to Wiki articles, or fitting the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, mainly relating to keeping it to Broad Coverage. A lot of quotes and individual remarks have been added, that seem excessive and bring in some POV concerns as well, making it read more like a magazine article than an encyclopedic one.

This article may need some clean up before being passed. x (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disclaimer: I've done considerable editing recently on the Dana Delany article, but wanted to add my two cents. I kind of agree that the article has become somewhat long, but I think this could be solved by better organization -- perhaps a paragraph or two summarizing the major events of her theatrical career, specifically the China Beach stuff and the Desperate Housewives stuff, like near the top (under the first paragraph). Or maybe an expanded first paragraph? I think most readers would only be interested in these two things (ie CB and DH). But, for the few readers who are interested in more detailed information, I recommend keeping the critics' comments in, although perhaps the list of films and projects she's worked on could be shortened. The filmography (I think) is great -- I combined stuff from numerous sites as well as put new stuff in, and meticulously checked this over. I bet Wikipedia has the MOST AUTHORITATIVE FILMOGRAPHY of DD and this will help Wikipedia's reputation I hope (although I'll try to keep it updated as DD does new stuff.) I hunted extensively for both positive and negative criticism of her work -- the only negative stuff I found was a blogger's comment that DD was lousy in something (and blogger = flaky source as you know); in addition, critic Terrence Rafferty once described one of her performances as "uninteresting", but I didn't know what that meant, and didn't know how to include it. DD is a talented actress who rarely screws up a role -- if you hunt through the web for negative stuff, it's very hard to find. Many of the films she was in sucked -- I put that info in, too, like when a film got mixed to negative reviews (Housesitter was lackluster in my personal opinion too). And my personal opinion was that she sucked in some TV role I saw her in (casting problem probably) and I can't remember the name of the show -- it was in the early 90s I think -- but that's my personal opinion, not printable. My biggest problem with the DD article so far is that the pictures are boring -- just DD accepting awards like at Emmys -- I'd like to see pictures of DD starring in actual productions -- but even though I tried writing and phoning her agents, requesting better pictures, nothing seems to happen about getting better pictures. My personal bias is to include more pictures since I think too much text is a turnoff. And, I don't think the "voice talent" stuff is that important, but there are users who relate to this stuff, and I don't want to get into an edit war with them about this detail. But generally I'm going to only watch the DD page and not do anything major for a long while since I'm doing stuff on BMC Software and Statistics New Zealand and other stuff I know nothing about. Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This GA review seems to be orphaned, and a bit old (GA reviews should not take longer than 2-3 weeks). To sum the article up against the six GA criteria, I don't think this passes at the present time. Here's the summary:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead section is too short and doesn't summarize the article. The prose is choppy in parts, and needs a good copyedit.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Most of the sources seem to be reliable, but the citation format needs work and doesn't comply with WP:CITE. For citations linked as URLs, the date of retrieval needs to be included in the citation. I didn't really check for WP:OR issues too much, but I am concerned that some of the fancruft in the article could, in fact, be original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Probably complete, if not a bit overdone. Some sections could probably be trimmed of excess fat.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Parts of the text seem to be written more from the point of view of an avid fan, and should be rewritten more neutrally.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There don't appear to be any major edit wars going on.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The images are all tagged and captioned appropriately.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article does not meet the GA criteria in its current state. It can be renominated once it meets the criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that people have worked hard to try to fix the article, and rate it for GA status. And I've been thinking about this somewhat as a past contributor. And, while some of the criticisms are perhaps accurate (eg needs trimming, prose somewhat choppy) basically I think the article, as is, is basically a good article, and can be improved somewhat, but not much. And, I think, given the material here, that we're basically doing a fairly good job. I disagree that the LEDE or LEAD section needs to be more than a few sentences -- I like short lead paragraphs which make it possible for people to quickly get the idea of what the article is about; short LEADS let them decide quickly whether to read further; and as a writer, I disagree on principle with Wikipedia's preference for longer LEAD paragraphs. About the story: well, I think there are basically FOUR stories here, possibly FIVE, which are interesting. (1) DD is an EXCELLENT HIGH-CALIBER actress who rarely, if ever screws up a role, who can play nuanced roles with subtlety and grace -- critics bear this out and I think all of the critical commentary should stay in to make this point; I couldn't find ANY negative criticism of her performances from a reputable critic -- and she works CONSISTENTLY with no long breaks (2) DD swings from playing mass-appeal stuff (where there's more $ and fame but more mundane scripts) and high-concept tough scripts with good writing but which rarely click with the mass public; and her career is a shift between these two. And occasionally where she shines the best is where she finds a tough role in a mass media TV show like China Beach or Desperate Housewives -- China Beach, in particular, was so well written but it was constantly having ratings problems (3) DD has trouble sometimes picking scripts (a difficult task for any actor), most notably, initially turning down the Desperate Housewives role (and getting a second break) (4) her focus on ACTING not celebrity is consistent -- she doesn't pull stunts to get attention, like weird marriages or outlandish statements or numbskull celebrity antics like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton and such; she's not a "star" but a serious hardworking actor (5) her best friend sharon monsky dying of scleroderma -- this story could be expanded somehow, since DD and SM acted in the movie about Scleroderma, and expanding this could be interesting. But, like if I was an editor, I'd think that focusing on those four or five core stories will improve this article; last, I think in the article itself, listing so many movies, like DD was in this, DD was in that, -- that kind of stuff could be trimmed since it's available in the thorough filmography. And, my overall thought is this: to hell with GA reviews; I think editors should focus on writing the article that WE THINK is best, that WE THINK best captures the essence of this story, and throw out any checklists in the trash. My thoughts at this point; I'd help but I'm working on other stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Lane stuff

[edit]

I know there are some editors who love DD's voice-work and relate to it; but I don't think "Work on Lois Lane" deserves its own sub-subsection -- if we add one sub-subsection, and it's the only one, it looks odd -- possibly we'll have to add more sub-subsections (which I advise against since it doesn't add more information and I don't think it will help readers find stuff). I advise removing the "Work on Lois Lane" header. I'm a writer. Please trust my thinking on this. My bias is towards making this article better, hopefully a "good article", maybe someday a "featured article". If we can make it a featured article, then possibly more readers will look at it. If the interest of other editors is helping DD gain more exposure, and tell more readers about the Lois Lane stuff, then things like editing for flow will help. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love the voice work in the header section. Shows how petty and evil wikipedia editors can be. Great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.131.190 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of the article

[edit]

Generally, I think we have limited choices here about how to organize this article -- chronological or by type of work (TV, movies, stage, voice). The format now is mostly chronological (with subsections -- 1980s, 1990s, 2000s etc), except the voice work is somewhat out of sequence chronologically. So, some of the voice work from the early 1990s, as well as later 2000s, is in a clump around the later 1990s -- somewhat out of sequence; in addition, her cause-related work is in a clump of its own at the bottom. But this structure is similar to what many other celebrities have, probably helpful for readers, I think, to find information they're seeking quickly. I don't think there are any great organizational alternatives here. I lean towards the chronological structure because it makes it possible to put in interesting stuff like DD's initial turn-down of her D.Housewives role, or her initial attempts at the China Beach role. I tried organizing it by type of project, but then it didn't look right to my eyes. And I don't think acting on a stage is that different from acting on TV (that is, enough to merit separating the two). What I'm saying is -- let's stick with one structure (I favor chronological). Further, another benefit of the chronological structure is that it makes it easy for future editors to add new stuff as DD does new projects -- they put it at the bottom. If an editor wants to totally rewrite the DD article by type of project, this is a lot of work, but I'll consider serious changes, but to do this well one would have to be a fairly good writer I think; ,I think we should stick with the chronological structure that we've got. The exception is if a future editor feels the whole article is too long, and wants to cut substantial portions of it, then considerations of topic-related organization might be feasible. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Delany and "TOMBSTONE"

[edit]

I am quite disappointed that you failed to mention in Dana Delany's bio that she appeared as Josephine Marcus in the movie "TOMBSTONE" with Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.154.174 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. You are indeed correct that there is a rather disappointing omission of Delany's role "Josephine Marcus" in the article. No mention whatsoever. At Wikipedia, we pride ourselves in factual information, quality writing, and attention to detail, and that an omission such as the one you noted is quite disturbing and will be reported at the highest levels of Wikipedia. I'll try to write a note to Jimmy Wales himself about this occurrence. There are serious concerns that this omission will hamper the article's overall integrity and possibly lead to serious loss of trust in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia on the whole. In the meantime, I am calling for an editorial review board to ascertain the relevant facts in the matter, and if necessary, mete out the necessary punishments to the offending contributors. Please accept our sincerest and most heartfelt apologies for this oversight. Rest assured that it is getting the highest levels of attention at this point and we will keep you informed about progress as it happens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Multiple sarcasms, indeed. And why no mention in the article of she being sisters with (also) actress Kim Delaney?
Oh, wait. Cause she's not. My bad. Still, i can't understand how someone as disturbingly mundane as Dana can get such a high ranking in a list of most beautiful people, even if it's People Magazine's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.133.49 (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danimals and International Dana Delany Day

[edit]

I've included these two in a sentence. But couldn't provide proper reference. Could anyone please help me? ANUbOMB (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the Tombstone Role

[edit]

She starred in Tombstone. Missing from the 90s. filmography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.176.160.26 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dare ask it: Has she modeled as "Delany Decolleur"?

[edit]

There. I said it. Before doing your own research, be advised that, while tasteful (in a "Bettie Page" kind of way), the images are certainly NSFW. Viewer Discretion is advised! 2003:CA:3F18:46E4:F59C:3DE8:9C45:F01C (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being cheeky. It's "super easy, barely an inconvenience" to see you are referring to an ordinary topless "model", boobpedia.com/boobs/Delany_Decolleur. WurmWoodeT 04:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dana_Delany&oldid=1201432038"