Jump to content

Talk:Jessica Martin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jessica Martin

[edit]

She is from Madison Heights Va And her birh day is Feb 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.32.251 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jessica Martin this page is about is not the same Jessica Martin who voiced Samus Aran in Metroid: Other M. That would be this woman. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3951823/

Looks from a web search that the Jessica Martin this page is about was born on 25 August 1962 - any definitive source for this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answering my own question... BFI site has this date. I believe it to be a reliable source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jessica Martin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this review on. It's been waiting in the queue a bit too long given how short it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Clarity:
    • Martin became an impressionist on the fringe circuit. – When and where?
    • She auditioned for several roles – What type of roles? Was she focused exclusively on impressionist roles by this point? And were they all television roles, or was she applying for stage roles too?
    • Bremner and Martin toured theatres together in 1987, with a show of impressions. – Does the source say where? Were they limited to London, for example, or did they travel farther?
    • Lottie Ames in Mack and Mabel, and Lottie Lacey in the revival of William Inge's The Dark at the Top of the Stairs. – Are there years for these?
    Conciseness:
    • Her first job, in 1983 when she was 21, was as a resident singer at St James's Hotel and Club, where her father, Placido Martin, was the cocktail pianist. – Should be rewritten, maybe split into two sentences.
    • She told an interviewer in 2019 – This feels tacked on. I expected the statement to be something about her career. Lead into the sentence so we know it's about her father.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Two comments on the lead. No issues with the other four manual of style guidelines.
    • whose career has diversified to include comic writing and illustrating – Would it be fair to simply call her a comic writer or an illustrator at this point? If not, then it probably shouldn’t be in the first sentence.
    • The final sentence of the first paragraph feels tacked on. This might be my personal preference, but I would either change it to "She also" or I would rewrite it so the Doctor Who roles are in one sentence.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Sources are adequately formatted.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Citations placed throughout article, but some concern about the sources.
    • Several of the sources on this article appear to be tabloids, including the Daily Mirror, the Daily Record, and the Birmingham Mail. While these aren't automatically unreliable just for being tabloids, they're not ideal, especially for a BLP. I would strongly recommend replacing tabloid sources with better ones wherever possible, at least in the Life and career section.
    • Some sources I don't recognize and don't appear when I look them up: What's On: Wirral and Playing against the odds.
    • I found an online source, the Wirral Globe, that seems to be the same as the What's On: Wirral one, so amended it. Not sure what the Playing against the odds one was, looks like I miscopied something; replaced with the Daily Telegraph. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    No original research is apparent. Statements in the article plainly describe things the subject did or quotations of what people said.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Only major WP:EARWIG result was a website that copied this article.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    • Based on her webpage, she seems to consider cabaret specifically to be a significant part of her career, but the article does not mention it in the body.
    • I get the impression that she's more involved in Doctor Who and its fan community than the article suggests.
    • There is currently no section for awards or award nominations.
    • I think her filmography should include her video game voice roles, even if it's just one.
    • A section on personal life or non-entertainment endeavors might be appropriate. Her quote about her father and her patronage would both go in such a section, but it might not be warranted if she doesn't have any other notable facts about her life outside of acting and illustrating.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): {{GAList/check|pass}
    No unnecessary detail.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No neutrality issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No recent edits.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    One image taken by nominator and released under Creative Commons.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Image is of subject, captioned with year.
  7. Overall: This article largely meets the GA criteria, and it's mostly minor issues that need correction. My main concerns are the reliability of some of the sources and a few details that might be missing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass or Fail:

Many thanks for a helpful and constructive review, Thebiguglyalien. Unfortunately there's not enough detail in indpendent reliable sources (that I could find) to fully address all of your comments. I've replied to your points above - let me know what else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article covers everything that can be expected given the available sources. My one remaining comment was that the first sentence wasn't as succinct as it could be, but it felt silly to hold the article back for something so little, so I've reworded it myself. Feel free to change it to your liking. I'll go ahead and pass the article now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Jessica Martin
Jessica Martin

Improved to Good Article status by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Self-nominated at 16:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reviewing GenQuest "scribble" 21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination's been abandoned for over a week, so I'll claim this. Article was nominated at DYK within seven days of passing GA. Article meets DYK length and policy requirements. Earwigs only pings some long proper titles. Both hooks are short enough and cited; I'm kind of lukewarm on ALT1, but ALT0 is interesting. QPQ has been completed. Image is free, used in the article, and reproduces well at a small size. Morgan695 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jessica_Martin&oldid=1208836200"