Talk:Florence Pugh

	Florence Pugh has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 30, 2015 Articles for deletion Deleted May 21, 2021 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers 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 supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Women in Red: VisibleWikiWomen (2021) This article was created or improved during the VisibleWikiWomen edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in March 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: July 11 to 17, 2021

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Biography – Dear Florence (Pugh), 2020

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

I cannot find any references for this that aren’t ultimately pulling from Wikipedia. Can we get a citation here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.160.123 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source people are gathering this from is the birth records compiled by familysearch.org (which only show the first middle name while leaving the other two as initials, as is the British way), which personally I think is inappropriate here and should only be used in extreme situations. ⌚️ (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two photos from the same event is more suitable?

• 
  A.
• 
  B.

KyleJoan^talk 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second, it's more flattering, but obviously I'm biased, since I'm the one who changed it in the first place - apologies for that! Should there be a new RfC, since this hasn't garnered much response? Sorry and thanks again.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to open an RfC if you'd like, Bettydaisies. KyleJoan^talk 08:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Infobox photograph

Of the two images listed by KyleJoan above, which better suits the subject in question as primary mode of identification?--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The second gives a closer image of the subject's face. The first appears to be shot while talking, which is possibly sub-ideal. There's a good argument to be made for the superiority of a neutral-expression photo, but the article's second photo looks to fit that criteria -- I'd actually suggest the second photo in the article become the primary one, and whichever photo is taken here be put in its current place, but regardless. I'd vote for the second. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The second is more suitable for a lede image. ~ HAL333 04:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]