Template:Did you know nominations/Jane McNeill

The following discussion 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 no consensus to promote. The primary concern raised by DYK reviewer Ishtar456 (talk · contribs) is that the article relies only on one source. I too feel uncomfortable about promoting an article, particularly a WP:BLP, with merely one source. The lack of additional sources casts the notability of the subject in doubt as well.

An additional concern is that the source and another one are dead links:

• Royal, Fuller (2012-02-12). "McNeill-Balter on cable television's top rated series". The News Reporter. Retrieved 2012-02-18.
• "Margaret Powell McNeill". The News Reporter. 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2012-02-18.

Cunard (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Jane McNeill

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that actress Jane McNeill, who appears as Patricia on The Walking Dead, holds a master's degree in education from DePaul University?

• Reviewed: Twin pyramid complex

Created/expanded by Scanlan (talk). Self nom at 22:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• opening sentence needs to be reworded "McNeill may to best known..." I think you meant "may be best known..." But, in addition to changing "to" to "be" I think you might want to change "may" to "is" as the latter implies a point of view. Actually you might want to say "is known for...".
  • new enough and long enough, but I would like a second opinion about the number of sources. There are only 4 and it looks like the article is overly dependent on just one. Has inline citations, appears to have no copyright violations and appears neutral.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Second opinion on the number of references requested. The article is heavily dependent on one source and there are only 4 in total. Original request for second opinion was 9 days ago.
• I edited the opening sentence because it had a POV issue as it was written and the nom did not respond to fix it (although notified of the problem) within 9 days. Second notification will be posted.--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think they'll be anything else to add right now until future articles/sources are published. Scanlan (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel comfortable passing it with basically only one source, maybe someone else will. Second opinion please.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)