Talk:Sarah-Jane Honeywell

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

what is a 'skin' artist?[edit]

there is no link or explanation of what this term means, and I have a gut feeling that the obvious guess is in fact dead wrong. I think it may be a jargon term from an unknown dicipline.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmackaerospace (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the most common interpretation of "skin artist" I can find is a tattooist, which I doubt is what is intended. This term should be removed unless someone can provide a link to explain.

Requested move[edit]

Sarah Jane Honeywell → Sarah-Jane Honeywell – {mis-spelling of name} — Burns flipper 07:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support, correct spelling can be found at Sarah-Jane's official site[1] Burns flipper 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

reads like an advertisement for her. Wowlookitsjoe 14:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this looks like it's her CV!--Victim Of Fate 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm going to remove most of this unless anyone can give me a reason not to. I'm not saying that she's not notable, but Wikipedia is not a suitable place for her acting CV! --Victim Of Fate 09:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added refs of where the info came from; if her 'acting CV' details information about the subject of the article, why is this unsuitable? By the same argument you would have to remove half the content of Harrison Ford's page. The discussion page is for discussion - if you want to remove large portions of text from an article please discuss and give those with an interest time to respond. Burns flipper 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not leaving you enough time, though somebody originally brought up the lack of NPOV on 30th April, after which you made amendments to the article without addressing the comment on the discussion page. The difference between Sarah Jane Honeywell and Harrison Ford is notability. Harrison Ford's entry on Wikipedia does not contain details of every play and minor theatrical production that he has ever appeared in, and nor should it. It only contains notable details - and clearly Harrison Ford is a major international star, so details of his life are far more notable than those of Sarah Jane Honeywell. It is not notable that Sarah Jane Honeywell can read music, neither do we need a list of all the accents which she can do. We have a link to her CV, which is bad enough itself. We certainly don't need her entire CV published here imo. And while we're on it, I don't think using someone's online CV as a source is strictly NPOV anyway.--Victim Of Fate 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having her career here is a source of information. In the 'career' section, there is nothing denoting my point of view, it shows a statement of fact of plays etc she has appeared in, and therefore I believe conforms to NPOV. Using her CV as a source is valid if that is a source of factual information, and there is no POV attached to it. I do not believe there is a Wikipedia policy regarding how much detail of the same subject (i.e. her acting roles) should be in an article, but please correct me if I'm wrong. IMO the more information the better for articles, especially for those with limited other information available. Burns flipper 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that there is a policy regarding the level of accurate detail into which articles should go, but at the same time, I think common sense should be excercised. Sarah Jane Honeywell is notable only for her work as a children's TV presenter on the CBeebies channel. The extra information about her is totally out of proportion with her level of notability, and with the reasons for her notability. She is not a notable actress, so details of her skills as an actress are not something I would say deserve to be on her article. In addition, the talent section sources her website. While the career information is objective and factual (though unnecessary in my opinion), her own assessments of her skills are blatantly POV. --Victim Of Fate 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited. Burns flipper 07:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability, she is certainly more notable as far as my son is concerned than Harison Ford ;)

Age or acting age?[edit]

I know that an actor's acting age is generally accepted (even when it decreases...), but do we have any independent confirmation that SJH was in fact born in 1974? -- Rogerborg 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be your suggested source? I think acting age is different to her CV saying she was born in 1974. Also, does it really matter? If all our sources say she was born in this year, and it's not wildly out (I've met her, and she's clearly early 30's, not 62 or anything), I see no reason to go questing to find out if it's a year out.Burns flipper 07:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Register of births. I understand the distinction, given that I created the acting age page to explain it. It matters because Wikipedia aims to be fact based. Of course, a real fan would already have tracked down her birth registration. ;P -- Rogerborg 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your challenge. I will return with her birthday. Burns flipper 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, she needs that in order to get older. Be sure to put it back when you're done. -- Rogerborg 13:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I have amended the bit about her being "one of the most attractive members on children's TV." Firstly, she now only appears on reruns of Higgledy House and Tikkabilla, and secondly her "attractiveness" is POV - there are many who would agree with this POV, but there are some who find her a bit annoying... Paul-b4 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sarah-Jane Honeywell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Rating==
  • Article rated as B-Class, as there is not much content other than a basic biography. Grammar & references need no work, just extra background on the subject is needed.

===Strengths===

  • Well-sourced
  • Concise
  • has a picture
  • has a table
  • grammar and spelling correct

===Weaknesses===

  • Lack of background content
  • Only websites used as sources, no hardcopy publications
Burns flipper 11:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sarah-Jane Honeywell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah-Jane Honeywell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah-Jane_Honeywell&oldid=1207634255"