177:, and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I've also had input from several experienced editors. I believe it meets the criteria, but will happily address any concerns you may have. This is a popular article that gets viewed approximately 150,000 times a month, and would be a great feature for the main page (hopefully for her 105th birthday in May). Please note that all images have been carefully checked to be in the public domain (apart from one, which I believe meets non-free criteria).
442:
avoided using in this article are 1) biographies that make extreme claims and have subsequently met with a backlash from aquaintainces and experts (this refers to
Leaming, Parish, Porter and Mann - although I have now made a reference to Mann and his argument in the article). Honestly, to anyone who knows anything about Hepburn, these books are considered a joke. Their research has been strongly called into question. I believe that using them would be the equivalent of using tabloid newspapers, which is something frowned upon here. 2) I thought the exclusion of rather "casual" books like Considine-Meara's
415:, before I dig in. I appreciate the evident fact that there are many books out there on the subject. May I ask what your general strategy was for selecting sources? You make some comments above about how certain books were not well-received or are unreliable, but what information are you basing your assumptions on? For example, did you seek the opinion of a film scholar, or do you have a reliable source that provides insight on which Hepburn books are unreliable? On reviewing potential sources, I noticed, for example, the Worrall book
288:, drew its strength from the author's interviews with a number of Hepburn's friends and coworkers ... , Higham came closest to getting it right." He has no negative things to say about this bio. And I can assure you that I only have an interest in depicting Kate accurately and would not be using a book I felt to be unreliable. There aren't many good books to chose from for Hepburn, most seem to have an agenda, and I have made sure to use the ones considered the best. I ask you to please have faith in the article. --
384:
this is the only place to get them all collected on one page. And when it comes to finding an actor's/film's awards, I'd say IMDb is considered one of the best resources available. This stuff is only added by IMDb employees, it can't be added by the public like in their "trivia" and other sections (at least I'm pretty sure this is the case).
450:
was fine because they are, well, so casual. As for that specific interview you linked to, there's a very practical reason why I haven't used it. It is only available as an e-book, and I don't have a device for that! I'd love to read it. But to be honest, I'd be very surprised if it includes anything
383:
IMDb is used only to cite her filmography stats and her awards. I feel it's a good source for her checking the stats of her career (how many films, how many tv films) because it numbers them. It makes for quick and easy verifiablity. The info here is absolutely, undoubtedly accurate. As for awards,
483:
Just one more thing to add. I hope you remember, Hepburn was a big celebrity, and one with the potential for lots of juicy stories. People have exploited this, and written a lot of crap about her. It's not like the respectable books that have been written about poets and artists, you know? Most of
283:
is generally considered reliable. James Curtis recently published a biography of
Spencer Tracy, and it is one of the best researched bios I've ever seen. At the end, he assesses the various Hepburn biographies (because they have played such a big part in shaping Tracy's image) and says: "The first
1023:
Hooray, thanks Doc! Thanks very much for taking the time to read it and I'm glad you enjoyed it. I confess that there is no official source I have used to select the films listed, it is merely a selection—based on my knowledge—of her films that are generally well thought of and fairly-widely seen
785:
Now this is tricky, because the other two films in the comedy list (Bringing up Baby and The
Philadelphia Story) have just been mentioned at this point in the article, and it has already been established that they are classics. I felt it would be a bit awkward to repeat their names again for the
274:
The Higham book is one of the few
Hepburn biographies that has not met with a poor reception. He makes no scandalous claims at all, unlike William Mann's book which insists she and Tracy were both gay and the Barbara Leaming book, which for some reason claims John Ford was the love of her life.
441:
That's a fair question. No I didn't consult a film scholar, but I have done a hell of a lot of reading about this woman, seen practically all her films and interviews, and consider myself pretty much an expert on
Hepburn (probably as knowledgable as any film scholar would be). The books I have
1404:, and at the time thought it a masterful work by a dedicated editor. I'm so glad to see it's only improved since then. It's well written, exhaustively researched, and a great representative of one of the greatest actors, ever. I'm also a big fan of the new lead. :) Great work, Lobo!
759:
The statement is also sourced to Berg p. 17, where he uses those words ("The modern woman
Hepburn symbolized..."). The other ref is used to support the first half of the sentence (which is also supported by Berg, but I thought it was nice to show two different sources say
795:: OK for the square name; failed verification on the 12 stepping stones. Although this could be verified by going to the garden and looking, the lack of a third-party source describing the steps indicates that they are not especially notable and should perhaps be cut.
672:: "in the family plot" is not covered by the source (neither is the burial location but that can be sourced from the picture). "private plot" would be. The source calls itself "The Guardian, Monday 30 June 2003". I see no reason not to use the name of the newspaper.
1160:"Dominant" in the sentence cited above rings oddly in this context. "Confident" or "assertive" or something similar would be better. ("Domineering" is the closest-sounding term commonly applied to a person's character, but I don't think you mean "domineering".)
1211:
before its FAC submission, and was impressed by the ready co-operation of the nominator in resolving outstanding issues. I thought the article was in good shape then; it has continued to improve during this process, and I hope to see it promoted shortly.
1054:
passed. Nominator is to be commended for going the full length in justifying his usage of stills by checking copyright renewals and film copyright handbooks. I'll try to find time to read the text shortly as I've recently read one of the more scurrilous
459:
The main thing is, I have definitely made use of all the best
Hepburn bios. If I had not made good use of Higham, Berg, Kanin and the new Spencer Tracy bio (probably the best research that's gone into her, even if it's not directly about her),
304:
Note to delagates: Jimknut explicitly identifies himself as an Errol Flynn fan on his userpage, so may have a personal and perhaps irrational vendeta against
Charles Higham (I'm not being rude here Jimknut, just making an observation)
818:" is not supported by the sources, as there could be others that we don't know about. It's better to say "Other exhibitions were..." or "Two other exhibitions were..." so that further exhibitions are not excluded by the phrasing.
740:
as he is a notable critic; the quote marks around "breaking the mold" could give the impression that this is a quote from the two sources, whereas it is actually signifying a colloquialism. I'd re-phrase or remove the quotes.
606:
839:
It was suggested to me that the place and year of first production were included in the article, but I can't find a single HQ source that gives both of these pieces of information! Do you think I should just remove it
1024:(they had to meet both these criteria, not just one). I have aimed to be completely objective, there are actually a couple there I'm not keen on and a couple of my favourites are missing. I used these two IMDb lists,
488:
to be selective in the material, to make it a respectable article. I truly think it's is a good thing that I've done this (and a good thing that I am so knowledgable about her, so I know which books to avoid).
117:
455:
to go into a lot of detail about this in the article - I think these sections are the appropriate length they should be. The article is already very long, and I don't think those sections can afford to be any
1102:
or not? I looked at the first four list sentences; two currently have a serial comma, two do not. This is just to demonstrate the inconsistency; the entire article needs brought in line with one or the other
1269:
I note a number of final sentences in paragraphs are not cited, and most (though not all) tend to relate to awards. These should all be cited as a matter of course -- examples below, pls check throughout:
1032:
as guides. And I do think they are a good indicator of the current standing of her films (as objective as anything I'm likely to find). I also tagged on
Morning Glory, since she won an Oscar for it. --
722:
is actually a well known and important cultural magazine, that spanned almost the entire 20th century (making their "100 icons of the century" list rather poignant). The list was mentioned by
505:
Thanks for your quick answer! Everyone you've said makes sense. Subjects for whom so much have been written present an interesting challenge in research. I will provide a full review soon. --
467:
If you like, I can provide more quotes from Curtis's assessment of the various bios, which confirm what I've said here...so actually, yeah I guess I kind of have had input from an expert! --
676:: Can't find a HQ source that says family plot, removed that statement. I changed it to "guardian.co.uk" after I was asked to above, but TBH I agree with you and certainly prefer it to say
254:
I'm slightly resistant to do this, because the caption is already long and
Manners isn't a notable enough co-star to warrant making it longer. I'll do it if it's really wanted though. --
1070:
Thanks, I did put in a lot of time and effort getting the pictures right, so I appreciate the acknowledgment. Did you also spot that there is a media file, incorporated into "Legacy" (
451:
previously unsaid. Also, Berg's book goes into a lot of detail about the final years of her life, so I already have the material to expand those sections. However I've chosen
877:
856:
Thank you DrKiernan for taking on this task, let me know if I can return the favour sometime. I have fixed the errors and left some specific comments above. --
40:
581:
All fixed. I'm rather annoyed their official name is "guardian.co.uk" because none of the other web refs have that format, and it looks ugly, but oh well! --
1432:
Aww thanks Maria. It certainly took a lot of time to get to this point! I'm loving your "greatest actress" comment by the way, you have fine taste. ;) --
230:
Note: I am refraining from making any more suggestions about this article ... with one exception: I would identify the actor with Kate in the still from
1074:)? It's definitey PD, but you may want to check. Oh, and it's "her". ;) I hoped making my signature pink would resolve this problem, but I guess not! --
727:
1006:. I thought this was an enjoyable read; comments addressed. What rationale have you used for the selection of credits in the Filmography section?
30:
17:
1071:
713:: couldn't access. Dead links indicate to me that the sources and material are somewhat trivial. Scholarly sources are not prone to link rot.
940:
Well I'm not American, but I believe "theatre" is still an accepted spelling in the States. It is how all the Broadway theatres are spelled (
88:
83:
872:
That's all fine now, thank you. I don't think any further changes are necessary on , as your explanations have cleared up those points. The
173:
I bring to FAC one of the most famous and unique women of the last century. I began working on the article last August, when it looked like
92:
686:: the article says the money went "mostly" to her family; the source does not mention any other beneficiaries, implying they got the lot.
419:. You haven't used this source and it could add to the sparse section about her last years and death. Why did you decide not to use it? --
1417:
75:
664:
I've no qualms about using Higham. I've looked through the "Final years and death" and "Legacy" sections (numbering of sources as of
526:
If anyone else has concerns about my judgement of the sources, let me know and I will type up Curtis's comments as "expert proof". --
1443:
1424:
1387:
1369:
1350:
1238:
1221:
1199:
1180:
1149:
1085:
1064:
1043:
1015:
988:
960:
913:
897:
878:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/theater/theater-review-two-snapshots-of-a-hollywood-legend-at-home.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
867:
653:
636:
623:
now. I've been through the rest of the article, and it is excellent. I changed a few things here and there. Awesome job on this! --
592:
574:
537:
518:
500:
478:
432:
403:
364:
336:
316:
299:
265:
249:
222:
188:
165:
133:
200:
problem that prevents me from supporting it for FA status: One of your sources of information is a biography of Hepburn by
380:
closely at the sources for inconsistencies and found a few things to fix, let me know if you can see any more I've missed.
138:
755:
f: OK for the sense; the quotes in "modern woman" are again signifying a concept rather than the words of the sources.
832:
Do I use the "subscription required" template for this? Strange, some NYTimes articles require log-in, and some don't.
201:
1401:
1110:
Katharine Houghton Hepburn (May 12, 1907 – June 29, 2003) was an American actress of film, stage, and television.
749:
has said she "broke the mold" for women in Hollywood..", because those exact words are used in the image caption.
279:
are the Hepburn biographies to avoid, which I have done. Higham may have done some questionable work, but his
1412:
1060:
1217:
1208:
885:
79:
1227:
Thanks Brian! Your comments and encouragement were a big help. It's a privilege to have your support. --
631:
513:
464:
would mean the article was lacking. These are definitely the sources that *need* to be used for Hepburn.
427:
232:
327:- spotchecks not done, no comment on the conversation above (or source comprehensiveness in general).
683:
ab: OK. The source actually says the lights will be dimmed, but I guess we can assume that they were.
570:
360:
332:
204:, an author who is often derided for his lack of credibility (notably for his fabricated claims that
692:: failed verification. "Academics" is not covered by the source, and the writers are not academics:
1131:
Katharine Martha instilled in her daughter the virtues of perseverance, independence and fortitude.
1011:
984:
956:
893:
972:
786:
comedy list...Can you think of an effective way of doing this, that won't be wordy and repetitive?
565:
For all references cited to the BBC in this case, BBC News as the 'work'. BBC is the publisher. –
1406:
1383:
1346:
1056:
718:
1439:
1365:
1234:
1213:
1195:
1176:
1145:
1081:
1039:
909:
863:
649:
588:
533:
496:
474:
399:
312:
295:
261:
245:
218:
184:
161:
71:
64:
941:
624:
506:
420:
876:
article is probably still accessible to subscribers. On , I've found an accessible copy at
1252:
746:
737:
710:
You mean the book, in general? Well, I thought it was. It is an officially published book.
566:
356:
328:
745:: Thanks for noticing he is linkable, that's great! I've rephrased this to " Broadcaster
349:
1007:
980:
952:
889:
723:
559:
555:
1379:
1342:
1251:
For the non-Americans in the audience, it may be worthwhile to link "progressive" to
237:
53:
1434:
1360:
1229:
1191:
1171:
1140:
1076:
1034:
904:
858:
781:: OK. But the source says Hepburn was in 4 comedy films; the article just names 2.
644:
583:
528:
491:
469:
394:
307:
290:
256:
241:
214:
179:
157:
109:
1301:
I think I'll leave it as "Professional expansion": this makes clear that she was
212:
that Higham wrote and therefore must reluctantly pass on supporting this article.
194:
Congratulations on all the work you've done on this article. However, I have one
1128:
She was dominant, outspoken, athletic, and wore pants before it was fashionable.
1029:
1025:
205:
1099:
976:
930:
1098:
You need to choose a comma style and enforce it consistently throughout.
726:. That's very annoying they have removed the list from their site. Would
693:
822:- I've just removed the word "two" to stop it from sounding so definite.
886:
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/arts/theater/documents/02164902.htm
1298:
might read better as a heading -- suggestion only) -- last sentence.
1169:
Changed to "outspoken, assertive..", which I agree is much better. --
1358:
Hope that's all okay now, let me know if anything else is needed. --
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
1247:-- this looks about ready for promotion, just a couple of things:
523:
Good, I'm glad you understand. :) And I hope you like the article!
642:
Now that is a nice thing to wake up to, wonderful, thank you! --
484:
the books are people just trying to make a buck out of her. I
971:"Academy Award–winning" should be hyphenated not ndashed per
617:. They were prose concerns that have been fully dealt with.
345:
Be consistent in whether page numbers are spaced or unspaced
880:. I've also found a source for the year and place of the
392:
Thank you Nikkimaria for your time in looking at this. --
143:
1305:, whereas "challenges" could suggest she was struggling.
1094:
I'll mostly be addressing issues with the prose. First:
929:
Is the spelling "honored" and "theatre" consistent with
902:
Ooh you're a star, thank you. I'll add both of those. --
665:
614:
610:
174:
105:
101:
97:
57:
118:
Featured article candidates/Katharine Hepburn/archive1
1138:
Serial comma is now (hopefully) used consistently.--
700:Oh, apologies, I was misled by something. Removed.
1456:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
355:Don't duplicate cited sources in External links.
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
835:a: place OK; date not mentioned at the source.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1462:No further edits should be made to this page.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
1294:(by the way, know what you mean but perhaps
799:Fair enough. Removed fact about the stones.
417:Lunch With Miss Hepburn: The Last Interview
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
942:Broadway_theatre#List_of_Broadway_theatres
814:: Primary sources. "Two other exhibitions
284:major Hepburn biography, Charles Higham's
122:
387:BBC obituary removed from external links.
1333:All paragraphs now end with a reference.
1113:Three more Oscars came for her work in
603:Initial comments from Laser brain : -->
125:
115:
694:http://www.camedit.com/who_we-are.html
660:Source review (No. 3) and spot checks
7:
1310:Success in later years -- last para.
802:ab: OK for content. Primary source.
208:was a Nazi spy). I will not trust
828:: subscription or login required.
24:
1207:: I gave this article a thorough
805:: OK for content. Primary source.
706:: Is this source really notable?
1288:-- last sentence of second para.
1402:I reviewed this article for GAC
609:, with permision from delegate
348:What makes IMDb a high-quality
342:Ranges should all use endashes
236:. I believe the gentleman is
1:
1444:14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
1425:13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
1388:22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
1378:That's fine, thanks. Cheers,
1370:12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
1351:22:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
1239:21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
1222:19:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
1200:22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
1181:23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
1150:23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
1086:10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
1065:01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
1044:18:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
1016:18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
989:20:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
961:11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
914:11:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
898:11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
868:10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
654:09:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
637:06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
562:, not The Guardian newspaper.
1314:Film, television and theatre
1115:Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
593:16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
575:12:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
538:22:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
519:21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
501:21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
479:20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
433:19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
404:22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
365:21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
337:21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
317:17:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
300:16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
266:19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
250:17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
223:15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
189:18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
166:18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
736:: OK. You may wish to link
31:featured article nomination
1479:
605:These have been moved to
1459:Please do not modify it.
552:Comments – On references
56:22:38, 15 February 2012
36:Please do not modify it.
1296:Professional challenges
1030:her most voted on films
1026:her highest rated films
1292:Professional expansion
730:source be okay to use?
1274:Breaking into theatre
1209:talkpage review, here
233:A Bill of Divorcement
1052:Support Image review
1320:Focus on television
1119:The Lion in Winter
951:That's fine then.
680:, so changed back.
558:was published for
1423:
1322:-- last sentence.
1255:, as appropriate.
444:At Home With Kate
169:
151:
150:
72:Katharine Hepburn
65:Katharine Hepburn
1470:
1461:
1437:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1409:
1363:
1232:
1174:
1143:
1079:
1037:
925:Other comments:
907:
861:
647:
634:
629:
586:
531:
516:
511:
494:
472:
430:
425:
397:
310:
293:
259:
182:
154:
123:
113:
95:
48:The article was
38:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1457:
1435:
1418:
1413:
1405:
1361:
1316:-- fourth para.
1282:-- second para.
1280:Instant success
1276:-- fourth para.
1253:Progressive Era
1230:
1172:
1141:
1077:
1035:
905:
859:
747:Sheridan Morley
738:Sheridan Morley
645:
632:
625:
584:
529:
514:
507:
492:
470:
448:Knowing Hepburn
446:and Prideaux's
428:
421:
395:
350:reliable source
308:
291:
257:
213:
180:
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1476:
1474:
1465:
1464:
1451:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1373:
1372:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1317:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1289:
1283:
1277:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1257:
1256:
1242:
1241:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1123:On Golden Pond
1111:
1105:
1104:
1089:
1088:
1055:biographies.--
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
992:
991:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
946:
945:
935:
934:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
851:
850:
847:
844:
841:
833:
826:
823:
812:
809:
806:
803:
800:
793:
790:
787:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
764:
761:
753:
750:
734:
731:
711:
704:
701:
690:
684:
681:
657:
656:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
563:
560:guardian.co.uk
553:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
524:
465:
457:
436:
435:
409:
408:
407:
406:
389:
388:
385:
381:
368:
367:
353:
346:
343:
322:
321:
320:
319:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
202:Charles Higham
193:
171:
170:
156:Nominator(s):
149:
148:
147:
146:
144:External links
141:
136:
128:
127:
121:
120:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1475:
1463:
1460:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1445:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1408:
1403:
1399:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:Sturmvogel 66
1053:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
996:
995:
994:
993:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
962:
958:
954:
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
927:
926:
915:
912:
911:
908:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
866:
865:
862:
855:
854:
853:
852:
848:
845:
842:
838:
834:
831:
827:
824:
821:
817:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
798:
794:
791:
788:
784:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
762:
758:
754:
751:
748:
744:
739:
735:
732:
729:
725:
721:
720:
716:
712:
709:
705:
702:
699:
695:
691:
689:
685:
682:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
667:
662:
661:
655:
652:
651:
648:
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
630:
628:
622:
618:
616:
612:
608:
607:the talk page
604:
594:
591:
590:
587:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
564:
561:
557:
554:
551:
550:
539:
536:
535:
532:
525:
522:
521:
520:
517:
512:
510:
504:
503:
502:
499:
498:
495:
487:
482:
481:
480:
477:
476:
473:
466:
463:
458:
454:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
426:
424:
418:
414:
411:
410:
405:
402:
401:
398:
391:
390:
386:
382:
379:
375:
374:
373:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
347:
344:
341:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:Source review
318:
315:
314:
311:
303:
302:
301:
298:
297:
294:
287:
282:
278:
273:
267:
264:
263:
260:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:David Manners
235:
234:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
191:
190:
187:
186:
183:
176:
168:
167:
163:
159:
153:
152:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1458:
1455:
1450:
1433:
1397:
1396:
1359:
1340:
1319:
1313:
1302:
1295:
1291:
1285:
1279:
1273:
1244:
1243:
1228:
1214:Brianboulton
1204:
1203:
1189:
1170:
1139:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1100:Serial comma
1091:
1090:
1075:
1051:
1050:
1033:
1003:
1002:
924:
903:
884:premiere at
881:
873:
857:
836:
829:
819:
815:
796:
782:
756:
742:
717:
714:
707:
697:
687:
678:The Guardian
677:
673:
666:this version
663:
659:
658:
643:
626:
620:
619:
602:
601:
582:
527:
508:
490:
485:
468:
461:
452:
447:
443:
422:
416:
412:
393:
377:
371:
324:
323:
306:
289:
285:
280:
276:
255:
231:
209:
196:
195:
192:
178:
172:
155:
139:Citation bot
69:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1121:(1968) and
882:Tea at Five
840:altogether?
627:Laser brain
615:Laser brain
509:Laser brain
423:Laser brain
206:Errol Flynn
977:MOS:ENDASH
931:MOS:ENGVAR
567:Lemonade51
357:Nikkimaria
329:Nikkimaria
1419:submarine
1303:improving
1008:DrKiernan
981:DrKiernan
973:WP:HYPHEN
953:DrKiernan
890:DrKiernan
816:have been
376:I looked
1380:Ian Rose
1343:Ian Rose
1341:Cheers,
1117:(1967),
1092:Comment:
1072:this one
837:Comment:
830:Comment:
797:Comment:
783:Comment:
757:Comment:
715:Comment:
708:Comment:
210:anything
134:Analysis
54:Ian Rose
50:promoted
1398:Support
1286:Revival
1205:Support
1192:DCGeist
1125:(1981).
1004:Support
874:Variety
766:gh: OK.
724:the BBC
719:Variety
621:Support
556:Ref 285
456:bigger.
242:Jimknut
215:Jimknut
158:Lobo512
126:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
1440:(talk)
1366:(talk)
1235:(talk)
1177:(talk)
1146:(talk)
1103:style.
1082:(talk)
1040:(talk)
997:Fixed.
910:(talk)
864:(talk)
789:e: OK.
772:h: OK.
763:d: OK.
760:this).
752:d: OK.
703:c: OK.
698:Fixed:
650:(talk)
633:(talk)
611:Ucucha
589:(talk)
534:(talk)
515:(talk)
497:(talk)
475:(talk)
429:(talk)
400:(talk)
313:(talk)
296:(talk)
262:(talk)
185:(talk)
93:delete
1407:MarĂa
1245:Notes
1028:and
849:: OK.
846:: OK.
843:: OK.
825:: OK.
820:Fixed
811:: OK.
808:: OK.
792:: OK.
778:: OK.
775:i: OK
769:: OK.
743:Fixed
733:: OK.
688:Fixed
674:Fixed
413:Query
372:Reply
277:These
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1436:Lobo
1414:yllo
1384:talk
1362:Lobo
1347:talk
1262:Done
1231:Lobo
1218:talk
1196:talk
1173:Lobo
1142:Lobo
1078:Lobo
1061:talk
1036:Lobo
1012:talk
985:talk
975:and
957:talk
906:Lobo
894:talk
860:Lobo
728:this
646:Lobo
613:and
585:Lobo
571:talk
530:Lobo
493:Lobo
486:have
471:Lobo
462:that
396:Lobo
378:very
361:talk
333:talk
309:Lobo
292:Lobo
286:Kate
281:Kate
258:Lobo
246:talk
219:talk
181:Lobo
175:this
162:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
453:not
197:BIG
52:by
1400::
1386:)
1349:)
1220:)
1198:)
1063:)
1014:)
987:)
979:.
959:)
944:).
896:)
888:.
696:.
668::
573:)
489:--
363:)
335:)
305:--
248:)
240:.
221:)
164:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
1422:)
1411:(
1382:(
1345:(
1216:(
1194:(
1190:—
1059:(
1010:(
983:(
955:(
933:?
892:(
569:(
359:(
352:?
331:(
244:(
217:(
160:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.