Talk:Amelia Kinkade

Tags
While I have my personal doubts about the field, she appears notable. I've sourced the claims and removed the tags. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Girls Just Want to Have Fun
Does anyone know if she was a dancer in the "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" film, or in the Cyndi Lauper music video? If it was the film, the link needs to be modified to reflect that. Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical reaction
This section seems a bit out of place in its current form. The blockquote syntax seems a bit undue and it combines reviews of both her acting and writing. Perhaps there's a better way to incorporate the content contained into the section into the other sections of the article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We could certainly split it into sub-sections, one for her work as an actress, and one for her books. It is my view that a "critical reaction" or "critical response" section is usually the best way to present reviewsm of a creative person's work, particularly when these are being used in part to establish notability. I think it only confuses things to have reviews mixed in with an account of the work itself. Quotations r3eccomends that blockquote be used for quotations lo9nger than 40 words.  So does MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just the location of the section as a whole which seems odd to me. It seems like it should come before the "Books" (i.e. Bibliography) section per MOS:BIB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the comments on the books should come after the list of books, but that is a detail, and i wouldn't object to the section being moved before the list of publications. Does anyone else have a view on this? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
I've temporarily hid the infobox because it's way (in my opinion) a WP:DISINFOBOX than not. The article isn't really that long to begin with, but there's no need infobox that basically is just the MOS:LEAD in template form. Even if a freely-licensed image were found to use in the article, such a overly simple infobox probably wouldn't be needed. If the article continues to be expanded allowing more of the relevant parameters of infobox to be populated, then perhaps it would make sense to have one. This was a WP:BOLD edit, but I'm just adding a bit more of explanation as to why I made it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree—thanks for commenting it out for the time being. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly about the infobox one way or the other. The only changes I made were to add "dancer" and to remove the exact DOB, leaving only the year, as per WP:DOB. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)