Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Cooper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSarah Cooper has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 29, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
March 20, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Year of birth

[edit]

There is, frankly, some sort of active disinformation campaign going on regarding the article subject's year of birth. I have no idea why, but diff after diff after diff after diff from different IPs changes the article subject's year of birth from 1977 to 1984. Though I have no direct evidence to claim this, I would guess that it is politically motivated vandalism, because I see absolutely no potential source for confusion in any of the references (which all unambiguously support a birth date of either 1977 or 1978), and because of the significance of Nineteen Eighty-Four. I'm posting here to initiate WP:CONSENSUS-building and, if this does indeed turn out to just be vandalism, will soon pursue page protection. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain the vandalism is the result of Cooper mocking Pres. Agent Orange in Tik Tok videos by lip syncing his speeches. By the way, the first line of the "Early Life" section of this article says Cooper was still born. Is this vandalism or some kind of idiotic mistake? Lechonero (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it. Lechonero (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread the diff as adding something that it was actually removing which had been there for a disgustingly long time. My bad. This is the sort of thing that happens when there's a persistent vandalism campaign. I've requested page protection. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a bit of discrepancy, other sources are listing her age as 35, like this Washington Post story.The lorax (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, so there actually is some discrepancy! Well spotted, I thought I had double-checked every source but somehow I missed that. Very weird for there to be that much disagreement among reliable sources, that is a very big difference. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, so we have some sort of consensus position for people to agree/disagree with: I still think the preponderance of evidence is that she was born in 1977, since that source is so at odds with the other sources we have. But that could certainly change if people find other sources to back up the 1984 claim (or think it is somehow more reliable than all the others). - Astrophobe (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved Sarah Cooper → Sarah Cooper (disambiguation), Sarah Cooper (author) → Sarah Cooper. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added a Dab page about Sarah Cooper to this RM because this article seems to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for all Sarah Cooper articles whenever she is author or comedian. 36.77.94.124 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection to moving this to Sarah Cooper. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Topic of videos

[edit]

Regarding the series of edits around here: I encourage discussion on the wording of this sentence here so that we can reach a WP:CONSENSUS if people are still dissatisfied with it, but there's really no need to revert each other over an extremely simple factual claim that was the topic of ridiculously large volumes of press coverage. If the sentence I wrote isn't a good summary of the sources that's one thing, and something I'm happy to discuss of course, but introducing weasel words that pretend that the event is somehow vague or ambiguous is not a reasonable solution for such an easily verifiable claim. This isn't an event from the early 1600s with sketchy historical coverage -- we can all just google the video and read thousands of secondary writeups in all manner of WP:RS. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is not "said to have" suggested UV light and household cleaners. He suggested it. Sarah Cooper is lip synching Trump's words. The Guardian piece makes that clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English variety

[edit]

I've been cleaning up inconsistencies in the regional variety of English that's used and thought we should have some kind of discussion on the topic. When I wrote some of the early content for this page I suppressed my own Canadian English predilections on the theory that, by MOS:TIES, it makes sense to use American English. So there are instances of American English (or at least Oxford spelling) throughout the article. I can think of two main reasons why we might not need to continue down that path. First, the subject of the page is Jamaican as well as American, so the national ties argument is weak. Second, I was admittedly just running with that so that I had something to discipline my highly erratic Canadian spelling inclinations, so it's hard to argue that it was an implicit consensus, and now MOS:ARTCON might favour going with another English variety. So for now I'm going to keep assuming that we're using standard American English, but needless to say I don't exactly feel strongly and would be happy to use another variety. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article improvements after I nominated this for GA, Astrophobe; let me know if you would like me to add you as co-nominator. Standard American English seems fine to me. I'm in the UK so happy for copyedits to anything I've written that departs from standard American English. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer BennyOnTheLoose! To be honest I don't have a great sense for the pros/cons, but it sounds at first glance like it could only make things smoother since I am interested in helping to try to bring the article to GA anyways, so I should pay attention to the conversation about the GA nomination no matter what. So sure, I'd be happy to be added on! Thanks :) - Astrophobe (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 21:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • Infobox looks good.
  • Birthdate needs a source.
  • Here and in other sections, add a comma after "Sheets".
  • Here and in other sections, change "lip syncing" and "lip synced" to "lip-syncing" and "lip-synced".

Early life and education

[edit]
  • In the first reference, the Wayback Machine template isn't necessary or ideal to use since other references don't have it. May I suggest using "<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|date=|first=|last=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=live|access-date=}}</ref>" this instead?
  • Add a comma after "College Park".

Career

[edit]
  • Remove the comma after "comedy in Atlanta".
  • "of self-help book" → "of a self-help book"
  • Remove the commas after "performing on TikTok" and "economical political satire".
  • The Princess Bride should link to The Princess Bride (film).

Publications

[edit]
  • This section looks good.

Filmography

[edit]
  • This section looks good.

Awards and nominations

[edit]
  • This section looks good.

References

[edit]
  • PEOPLE.com → People
  • streamys.org → Streamy Awards
  • Mark references from The New Yorker with "|url-access=registration".
  • Mark references from Adweek with "|url-access=subscription".
  • Mark references from Financial Times with "|url-access=subscription".
  • Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Time with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from The Atlantic with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Vogue with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Vanity Fair with "|url-access=limited".
  • The two references after "the 2020 Democratic National Convention" are missing websites.
  • The reference after the "Associated Press" should link to the source.
@BennyOnTheLoose: Everything else looks good but her specific birthdate still needs a source. c (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive review, Some Dude From North Carolina. I've reached out to the co-nominator about the date of birth, as they may be able to resolve this more quickly than I can. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina - In the absence of a reliable source for Cooper's full date of birth being available, the article now just states her year of birth. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

[edit]
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.
    a (references):
    b (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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 MeegsC (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk) at 06:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Krish!: I currently only have three DYK credits, so I do not believe a QPQ is required. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ready to go.Krish | Talk To Me 07:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate

[edit]

This is Sarah Cooper. My birthday is December 19, 1977. Can someone please update this? 2600:1002:B1CB:AE1B:296C:ED69:9173:B971 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done . Verified by Google search. Have a happy birthday! Station1 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Station1 especially given the extra level of caution regarding WP:BLPDOB, can you please also include the source you found while google searching to substantiate that date of birth? I think we have several sufficient ones on the page but the birth date itself should still be cited to a strong source. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that, this requires a source and can not be done based on a request/claim by an anomymous IP. Assuming the IP does indeed belong to Sarah Copper, she has an easy option to remedy that. She can post her exact date of birth on her official blog, website ot twitter account and post the link here. That would be sufficient and then the article could be changed accordingly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an IP can claim to be anybody. But it makes no difference, if we verify the request. A Google search reveals numerous sources all showing the same birth date, and WP:VERIFY does not require inline citations for non-controversial facts, which is how it appears to me. But if anyone has reason to believe that the date might be incorrect, then it should be left out. Station1 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those "numerous sources" need to explicitly be cited and assessed as reliable (rather then just claimed to be existing).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate visible on Twitter: http://twitter.com/sarahcpr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahcpr (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sufficient as a source in this context since it is her official twitter account and doesn't contradict reliable sources on her.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Cooper&oldid=1218984689"