154:
228:
In a nutshell, there's not nearly enough to justify an article on the grounds of notability. If you can find more like Source 4, then throw them in. But a quick Google search suggests that will be a struggle. In which case, I just don't think the article is warranted. Can I ask why you think that it
256:. The page lacks reliable secondary sources, relying too heavily on Romilly's CV and third-party aggregate sites. The page would benefit from better sources and, if possible, more biographical information. Possible areas of interest that would align with
221:
Which leaves Source 4, the
Guardian review. This describes Ms Romilly's performance as "feisty" and "peppery". It's exactly what you need, but it is the only cite, amongst about 57, that, I would suggest, meets the criteria for reliability and
260:
guidelines might be family history, upbringing or training. I did a quick Google search and didn't hit on anything promising, but I wonder if there may be more substantive coverage in
Spanish media that could be used in keeping with
196:
of citations. The absence of a photo is a pity. But the key problem's already been identified in the tag - there are nowhere near enough reliable secondary sources used to indicate that Ms
Romilly warrants an article. To elaborate:
171:
I've listed this article for peer review because whilst I have listed the subject's career and a brief overview, I feel it might require some further input from editors more experienced in writing articles about actors.
76:
257:
126:
122:
107:
288:
99:
69:
50:
62:
17:
274:
238:
187:
44:
192:
First, the strong points. The article's well structured and "well-cited", in the sense of having a decent
115:
218:
Source 5 is the Globe advertisement for the show and does nothing but list Ms
Romilly as a cast member;
92:
262:
184:
270:
161:
234:
282:
176:
266:
212:
I really don't think these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources.
251:
230:
206:
Sources 2 and 3 are commercial, promotional, casting websites;
148:
141:
134:
103:
70:
8:
77:
63:
32:
203:Source 1 is her own, self-published cv;
35:
7:
24:
152:
188:11:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
275:00:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
258:biographies of living persons
239:21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
164:discussion has been closed.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
305:
289:March 2018 peer reviews
244:Comments from dnllnd
169:
168:
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
296:
255:
156:
155:
149:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
304:
303:
299:
298:
297:
295:
294:
293:
279:
278:
249:
246:
153:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
28:Beatriz Romilly
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
302:
300:
292:
291:
281:
280:
245:
242:
226:
225:
224:
223:
219:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
167:
166:
157:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
301:
290:
287:
286:
284:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
253:
248:I agree with
243:
241:
240:
236:
232:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
195:
190:
189:
186:
182:
181:
180:
173:
165:
163:
158:
151:
150:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
247:
227:
211:
193:
191:
185:Want a chat?
178:
177:
174:
170:
159:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
222:notability.
162:peer review
104:visual edit
283:Category
263:WP:NOENG
175:Thanks,
179:Osarius
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
267:Dnllnd
194:number
160:This
136:Watch
16:<
271:talk
252:KJP1
235:talk
231:KJP1
229:is?
123:edit
100:edit
265:?--
285::
273:)
237:)
183:-
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
269:(
254::
250:@
233:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.