Talk:E. Beatrice Riley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
 |
E. Beatrice Riley is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Notability
Of the many web pages from the 100 oldest persons, two seem to have been selected for deletion. Please explain. As for this page, she is the oldest person on Australia, a point of note. The article should be expanded, not removed. Alan Davidson 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree! Articles on oldest persons of any country should not be deleted because they are notable less well known yes but still notable and these articles are also a product of haard work of specialists and experts in the field of gerontology and verifying ages of people instead of deleting such articles I suggest to go after those vandalizing other articles those are the people who have nothing better to do not the contributors of this free online encyclopedia thanks! Ka el son of jor el 09:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- You said it: I fully agree then. Extremely sexy 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Position on list
I note she is the 50th "verified" person, but that very statement points to the Wikipedia list placing her at 52nd. I know the reader can scroll through and find out this point - but it is not very clear. Few readers would get the point. The confusing point is that these people are sufficiently verified for Wikipedia listing, but not outside purposes. I suggest for consistency purposes Wikipedia refers to its internal list. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine as long as all mentions of 'verified' and 'validated' are removed, since those are GRG terms. Captain celery (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Remove them - although I disagree on the ownership of words. The wikipedia sites should be consistent - and verified internally for its standard. Alan Davidson (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
To rephrase, those terms are associated with GRG, at least by regular users. The problem with removing them from this article is that they would have to be removed from all articles. It wouldn't take that long, but beware reverts. Captain celery (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to have internal consistency. Readers will be confused seeing the statement that she is in the top verified 50, and then seeing her at 52nd. Verified to the typical and averagee reader would mean internally for Wikipedia purposes. Perhaps a footnote can explain why. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A footnote might pass under people's radar, but could be easier to maintain than a moratorium on 'verified' and 'validated'. Captain celery (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The change to the Wikipedia page to "verified" will resolve this, as it will now refer to a verified list for Wikipedia purposes. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
