Talk:Caroline Flack

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caroline Flack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Other talk page banners

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Caroline Flack 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
June 17, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 15, 2020.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: The X Factor Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X Factor task force.

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

Women in Green: 2021

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Green project in 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

A sad reflection

It is a pity that ill intentioned actors on this article have trashed the memory of a beloved daughter, sister and friend, those who loved her. Wallie (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out where the article could be improved? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A lot of the material concerning bad mouthing her, including her character should be removed, as they are unsavory. The whole tone of the article is negative towards Caroline. It is a sad reflection on society that negative people, some of them who could be described as "trolls", muck rake and try to tear down the memory of people who we should feel compassion for, rather than gloat over their suicide. In essence, Wikipedia authors are in general not kind people. A benevolent attitude towards people might help. Wallie (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out all the material that you see as being "negative towards Caroline"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could reverse the question by asking if there is anything positive written about her. In my view, the entire article is negative. It seems that Wikipedia is biased in its treatment of people. In my view, this article is a disgrace. It certainly reflects the character and tone of the participant editors. To be honest, it saddens me that some people are like this. Wallie (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm very sorry that you are saddened and that you think "this article is a disgrace". But I'm not quite sure, on the basis of your three posts here, that there is justification for deleting the entire article. If you can give any clear example(s) of bias, these could be corrected. If you can't do this, the article can stay exactly as it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you win - again. I can't change anything in the article, as you will revert me, and have me banned again. I know that Caroline's memory is being trashed by her enemies. I hope that some day, someone will come along and speak up for Caroline. Wallie (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems unnecessary. @Wallie: it seems you only came back here to complain about an article where editors disagreed with you and you dislike the content. What was the purpose? This isn't the place for people to "speak up for Caroline". Alex (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never "had you banned". I have no intention of "having you banned again." Whether I revert you will wholly depend on what you put. Why should I bee seen as an "enemy of Caroline's memory"? If you have any suggestion for improvements, please go right ahead and suggest them. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid sources

I'm not a "stick big tags on an article" kind of guy, as you may have guessed, but I think the citations to Daily Mirror and Metro have got to go, and be replaced with a more reliable source. I'm not sure what off the top of my head, so if anyone has got any better ideas, shout! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Caroline Flack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 16:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

The "known for" parameter is not necessary for the infobox.

Works for me, taking it out will probably stop arguments about what goes in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add a comma after "Shortly after her birth".
Remove the comma after "a decade earlier".

Both done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"most watched" → "most-watched"

Is that grammatically correct? In this case "most-watched" is not a direct adjective. Any grammar pedants around to clarify? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can #Legacy be merged into #Death (MOS:PARA)?

As far as chapter and verse of the MOS goes, it's right on the edge. However, "Legacy" is posthumous activities celebrating her life and work, without directly referring to her death. Although it's short, it's not too short. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the filmography tables:

References should be centered.

I don't know how to do that, sorry Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year/Title/Role should be sortable.
Use scope row for the first column.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every guest appearance needs a source.

I've removed the unsourced entries. I did have a look for them, but only found IMDB and tabloid newspapers, which is a more general problem with this article anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#Radio should be converted into prose.

The problem then is it turns it into a duplicate of the existing prose in "career", making it redundant. It should either be the table here, or removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can #Television, #Radio, and #Bibliography be merged?

This came up on the talk page (see Talk:Caroline_Flack#Filmography), but there doesn't to be any consensus. Other television actor GAs (eg: Graham Chapman, Laurence Fox) use a single "Filmography" section, so I've gone with that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive sources (you can do it manually or use this tool).

I think that's been done; it was run about 7:00 UTC yesterday. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark references from The Daily Telegraph with "|url-access=registration".
Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".

Both done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Properly cite #8 (found after "Watton, Norfolk").

Replaced with a citation from her autobiography. I've tried to limit the number of citations to this, but I think it's reasonable to assume Flack is the best source for which school she attended. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use "publisher" for websites such as Deadline Hollywood and Sky News.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#89 is missing a website (Deadline Hollywood).

Fixed. My gut feeling was Deadline Hollywood doesn't sound like a good source, but consensus at WP:RSP is that it can be used for biographies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Burial place (subject to RS being found)

I am pleased to see this page now has Good Article status. Only improvement to content I can suggest would be if someone could add mention (under Death section) of her burial place, which I have read is at a Memorial Park near Norwich, Norfolk. However I have only seen it identified in reports of the funeral in tabloid newspapers like the Daily Star but not in 'quality' newspapers or those local to the Norwich area. (I am not a Norwich local.)Cloptonson (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the entry from FAG. Can we use that or not? Yes, it's also reported in The Sun and the Daily Mirror, and in the banned Daily Mail here. There's a piece about her memorial bench at HITC.com here, but it too is sourced to the DM. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although Find A Grave is much cited in wikipedia articles (usually minor articles that may not be rigorously 'policed'), I say. from experience of having used information from FAG in another article, only for it to be deleted by a user who said it is not considered RS by wikipedia (and I am aware of times FAG has been incorrect in attributing someone to a last resting place that wasn't). This discouraged me from using FAG in wikipedia. I wonder what say those editors who police this article? I have looked at the picture of the bench but I notice that the family (for reasons I could understand, if they want to avoid abusive vandalism) are quoted as not wanting to disclose its exact location beyond saying it's in Norfolk, so it cannot really be used in support of any claimed location of funeral. Memorial benches can be almost anywhere, they are not restricted to burial grounds and crematoria. A source should name the location and indicate it is the last resting place. As to the Daily Mail report, I notice that Caroline's mother is stated to have spoken to the Eastern Daily Press, which covers East Anglia, about the funeral, but the only EDP report I could easily google up, again, does not name the place.Cloptonson (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This report from sky.com says that her funeral was a "two-hour service at Greenacres at Colney on the edge of Norwich." I think that's a perfectly reliable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have introduced it into the text. You are welcome to improve the format of the citation.Cloptonson (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have tweaked. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the discussion, but for the record, the last discussion about Find A Grave is here, where consensus was found it was unsuitable. AFAIK, Sky News is not a problem. One of the reasons for improving the article to GA was to trim out all the tabloid and otherwise deprecated sources noted at WP:RSP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should add Sky and restore "Resting place " in the infobox? (It's also on Facebook page c/o "Kevin Cobbold Funeral Services"?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Sky News is okay as a source, but I'd prefer to have another source of similar reputation first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Might be a bit unlikely by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]