Talk:A Welsh Singer

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by History6042 talk 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an actress who appeared in the 1915 film A Welsh Singer did not act in a film again until 1948?

• Source: "Evans, Dame Edith Mary". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/31087. (Subscription, Wikipedia Library access or UK public library membership required.)

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Socialist Youth League Karl Liebknecht

5x expanded by Llewee (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

Llewee (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC).

• Article was expanded over 5x on 16 June, so no concerns. Hook fact is certainly interesting, present in article, and cited (AGF on subscription-locked source). Only think Earwig found was a direct quote which is attributed in article, so no worries. QPQ is completed. Looking good to go, nice work! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Llewee (talk · contribs) 23:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Please respond to comments with {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc. Note that I may make some suggestions that are beyond the GA criteria - my aim is to make the article as good as possible - but I will only pass/fail based on the criteria. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a short but complete article. Just a few tweaks recommended. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Llewee: Great work, happy to pass now! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I recommend changing the first sentence to A Welsh Singer is a lost 1915 British romantic film based on the novel of the same name

 Done

• Add date to the infobox

 Done added year, note sure about exact date --Llewee (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• The image filename is "File:Promotional image for The Welsh Dancer (1915).png". I assume this is a typo? If so, I can move the file to correct the film name.

• Yeah, this was a mistake on my part. I have requested a name change on commons.--Llewee (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Link to Lost film

• I have linked the new mention in the intro.--Llewee (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• No need for duplicate citations in the sentence The film was made...

 Done Not sure how that happened.--Llewee (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Change to ...made her first film appearance in the film; she would not appear...

 Done

• The first paragraph of the Reaction section is all about the advertising and might be worth moving to its own section.

 Done Moved the paragraph into the section above and renamed it "Production and marketing".--Llewee (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Is the American magazine mentioned Variety (magazine)? If so, link it.

 Done It was first published in 1905, so it should be.--Llewee (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Source comments (numbers per this version):
  • For source 1, the url duplicates the DOI. Same with source 13 with the Proquest ID.

 Done I think I have sorted this out, but I'm always a bit out of my depth with referencing issues.--Llewee (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• • Sources 2 and 5 should have the same formatting since they're different pages on the same database. I would use "British Film Institute" as the publisher and "BFI Film & TV Database" as the website name.

 Done I think you mean citation 4.--Llewee (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• • Sources without free access (3, and 6 through 13) should have access indicators (see WP:URLACCESS for details)

 Done

• • Sources 1, 2, and 4 pass a spot check. I don't have access to the others but accepting them in good faith.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expansion

I shortened the reception sections per guidance such as Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections and most notably WP:OQ and MOS:QUOTE. Excessive quotations that can otherwise be paraphrased are unnecessary and fairly encyclopedic. Some of the reviews are stating very generic praise that does not need to be quoted directly; the exact wording Birkenhead News used is not important, that they praised the film is. The advertisements, IMO, fall very much under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially since they are primary sources. Every silent films back in the day got tons of ads, do we really need to know advertisements for the film thought it was good? This is especially true since we have a scholarly secondary source (Moody 2007) which talks about the film's pressbook and how it was advertised. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok Generalissima, I think I was being needlessly defensive of the article, as it has just been promoted. I've returned to your version of the reaction section and condensed down the advertisements. --Llewee (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Apologizes for any annoyances. Nothing personal at all, I watchlist the GAN feed and often check to see if any articles are missing anything that I'd want to see on a GA. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)