Talk:Sandra Seacat

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

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 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). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This "article" is about 80% just promotional name-dropping. I haven't seen one source used that was actually providing significant coverage of the subject. It needs fixed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing the article tags is poor form. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give ma a fucking break, mon:

"Certainly, given her circumstances at that moment, one could see such advice applying equally to Seacat herself, and, indeed, by the early 1980s, Seacat had expanded her base of operations, teaching in both New York and Los Angeles (as she has continued to do ever since),[11] helping actors like Jessica Lange, Rachel Ward, and Marlo Thomas give career-altering performances. On March 29, 1983, just weeks after the announcement of Lange's dual Oscar nominations, Seacat was acknowledged"

"Kind words aside, in hindsight, one cannot help but note both the fact that Louise Lasser - barely visible in the finished film and nowhere to be seen in its credits [101] - was still being announced as one of the film's stars even after the film had wrapped, and that the film itself would not make it to theaters until more than a year past its estimated release date; certainly, the former tends to shed light on the latter, as it does on the general narrative disarray which, as evidenced by the mere titles of this broad sample of In the Spirit reviews, managed to survive nearly a year and a half's worth of editing - assuming, that is, that it was not in fact exacerbated by the process: "Grand and Goofy Comedy,"[102] "'In the Spirit' – An Endearing Mess,"[103] "Screwball Comedy Holds Up Even When Plot Sags,"[104] "Spirit Loses Its Comic Flair Halfway Through,"[105] "'Spirit' Amusing, But Unpolished,"[106] "'In the Spirit' Needs a Bit More Body,"[107] "'In The Spirit' Needs To Be More Perky, Less Poky,"[108] and "A Few Screws Are Loose But 'In The Spirit' Offers A Rare Glimpse Of Elaine May In A Feminist Comedy."[109]"

This is not article improvement. It is airy, condescending and unhelpful to readers. I'm giving it 12 hours to be radically (by 75%) trimmed and rewritten, else I shall deign, regrettably, to consider myself forced beyond the restraints of societal decency, to revert this crap. --Lexein (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree and done. I removed it. The perpetual fawning of a single editor is becoming a joke. I's also support removing the list of wikilinked actor names that amount to little more than name dropping.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the list seems reasonably sourced (without looking them all up) and was part of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Seacat, helping, as a whole, to establish her notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Being "sourced" isn't the question here. If I can source that Celebrity X like chocolate cake. Does that mean it must be included? Simply listing every notable person she was connected to is name dropping, nothing more than that. As for that AfD.......I still think the outcome was wrong and that the definition of "significant coverage" was sorely distorted. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your position under advisement, and may act later. For (somewhat related) comparison, Sherman Oaks Galleria includes a list of films shot there. All but one is cited, and the uncited one is discussed in article Talk. --Lexein (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Fawning" is the word I was looking for. As for the actornames, the sourcing saves them, though I would somewhat prefer one or two RS reporting them as a satisfied group of clients. --Lexein (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated note:

WP:PEACOCK, understand the notion of encyclopedic writing, and resubmit his cited content only after gimlet-eyed trimming and rewriting. --Lexein (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Related to that note....he admits to having studied under her as well (actually trying to use "a conversation" with her as a source). This almost looks like a COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You may already know this, but just in case, an article about Roberto Clemente had passed GA review, and then DavidESpeed vastly edited it and the GA approval was put on hold. It's documented on Talk:Roberto_Clemente. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned earlier, Author's efforts are the only thing that saved this article. Speed apparently struggles with the notion that this is not a creative writing exercise. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason she is no longer in the category of film directors? i know it was only one film, but even one film pretty much makes you a director.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]