This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I am kind of a maverick. I am not sure if the big quotes are frowned upon, but I see them enough, and feel this particular quote so identifies this actress it could have been her calling card. I am just writing this to emphasize my enthusiasm for it. --K3vin (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Times refers to Miner making her NY debut in 1948 in a play called Obligatoo, for which no confirmation can be found. The closest thing is a 1958 play called Obbligato (2 "bs", 1 "o"), reviewed in The Village Voice (available here). Given the lack of corroboration, and given the existence of a contemporaneous, detailed review, the Times appears to be in error, and I have adjusted the article accordingly. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]