Talk:Ida Lewis
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Ida Lewis was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 22, 2006. |
Google doodle
is the doodle really an encyclopedic fact worthy of report?
Old comments
The 1827 death date cannot be correct for her fater as it is after the ilness date. Can someone get the right date?
Ooops, my fault - that was a typo. I've fixed it. --AlbertHerring 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Good Article nomination
I thought the stub classification unjust, and on studying the classes thought this appropriate. Now to see what others think... J S Ayer 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I reviewed the article and while I think that it is a good start I just didn't think that it met the criterion for a good article. I would agree with you that the article is certainly not a stub, I don't think it is a good article either. To make it a good article I would suggest adding more citation throughout the article (many lines with declarative statements go unsourced) and I would add some more information in the middle of the article. You talk about how the she become the lighthouse keeper but then you jump to her national acclaim. I would like some more explanation about how exactly that occurred. I hope this is helpful. Timhud 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The links are all broken or out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.23.14 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Requested move 25 February 2017
The request to rename this article to Ida Lewis has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
Ida Lewis (lighthouse keeper) → Ida Lewis – Remove unnecessary disambiguation. Ida Lewis is currently a redirect to Julia Arthur, an actress born under the name of Ida Lewis. Being the birth name of the actress is not sufficient reason to keep this article at this current disambiguation title. After the move, I would place the following hatnote on this article, to wit: {{About|the lighthouse keeper|the actress born Ida Lewis|Julia Arthur}}. The hatnote on Julia Arthur would also need a slight tweak following the move. Safiel (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support The disambiguation "lighthouse keeper" is totally unnecessary. The other individual was famous and known as Julia Arthur, so a note, as you suggested, would solve the problem. Keivan.fTalk 07:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nomination and Keivan.f. Historical perspective may be gleaned from the 2008 discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrna Williams, which decided to keep the 2-entry Myrna Williams disambiguation page listing Myrna Williams (politician) and Myrna Adele Williams, the redirect indicating the birth name of movie star Myrna Loy. The qualifier "(politician)" was thus retained, even though the politician is the sole subject of a Wikipedia article entitled "Myrna Williams". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support This is the obvious thing to do MATThematical (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support The "Ida Lewis" title, unadorned, best serves the most well-known meme: the lighthouse keeper, not the actress who professionally went by another name. A standard disambiguation statement at the top of the light house keeper's article will serve the rare person looking up the actress by her original name. Gosgood (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Seems sensible to me given the policy of putting actors under their more common stage names, as long as both articles get hatnotes making linking to the other. Geoff Canyon (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Seems completely sensible to me. Good suggestion. --Jhertel (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- Start-Class Lighthouses articles
- Low-importance Lighthouses articles
- WikiProject Lighthouses articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Requested moves