Talk:Betty May

Question about Early life section
2nd para - After the struggle of supporting four children became too much, May and her brother were sent to live with her father which was the first time she had seen him. This sentence implies that May and her brother struggled supporting four children. Who actually struggled? Atsme  &#9775; Consult  01:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They all struggled! But I fixed it. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be tightened
Just my opinion, but the article is too long, and tends to ramble with a lot of run-on sentences, and irrelevant information here and there. I focused on sentence structure, and coherence, and made it as far as the Cocaine section. There are quite a few quotes from her autobiography, and that may create a copyright issue. I suggest replacing some of them with prose except for a few that could be used to demonstrate her tone, or style. I was hoping to have a review finished for the DYK, but I don't think the article is quite ready. Atsme  &#9775; Consult  04:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will take another look. I am not sure it is too long, it's someone's whole life and an action packed life too. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not disputing that at all, but for example, to list names of models she knew is blah, blah unless you explain the significance of her knowing them, especially names that aren't notable. Lose the trivial details, and focus on the action.  BLPs highlight the most notable aspects of a person's life, they don't detail them.  Just my 2 cents, and considering the rate of inflation, you know what's that worth.  Good luck with your article!  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand but I wanted to include the names of the other models because they were sometimes amusing, some are notable and mainly to make clear that there was a gaggle of them all plying their trade which seems to involve a combination of modelling, singing and dancing if they could, meeting wealthy men, sometimes prostitution (uncited so not in the article) and often coming to a sticky end! Believe me, I left plenty out, the book is over 200 pages long. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the tag will bring in some collaborators who can help tweak and tighten, and correct the autobiography source issue. Thanks for correcting the date - Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is very likely. Try searching for yourself and I think you will see what I mean. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Nicely done article. Could benefit from an infobox. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be much to put in it. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Images; MOS
I edited some images to face center; in accord with images MOS. Pointing to MOS. Which states that it is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Phila reverted me. Without any reason other than a personal view that he likes the images the other way (with the faces or eyes looking away from the text, off the page). I'm not sure why Phila is insistent on reverting, so that the image placement is contrary to MOS. But rather than just revert his revert, I'm first mentioning it here. Phila - do you have an MOS-based reason, rather than simply your personal preference? --Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one pic where the eyes (which are closed) and body are facing right (The Sphinx picture) and another half right with the body facing towards us (Nina Hamnett). My reasoning is that placing only one or two on the left looks odd and where they are at the start of a para disrupts the flow of text. It seems to me that easy reading of the text is the more important factor. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS suggests that with such images, it is preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. That is what I did. Indicating I was doing it per MOS.  You, on the other hand, reverted.  Here. So that the subject's eyes would look away from the text -- the opposite of what MOS calls for. Asserting your change was "better" - but not explaining why it was "better" to edit contrary to MOS. You then did the same here. So that the face looks away from the text. The opposite of what MOS calls for. Your reason? "Same."  But again not explaining why it was "better" to edit contrary to MOS.


 * Your reasoning now? Your personal point of view. Contrary to the MOS. That the MOS approach "looks odd" to you, and in your view "disrupts the flow of text." But that's not how MOS sees it -- the Project is full of images placed properly on the left, per MOS, in circumstances such as this, whether in the first para of a section or elsewhere.


 * The whole reason to have MOS in the first place is so that editors avoid imposing their personal view of what looks odd, or better, and follow a community standard for presentation. You haven't given any reason to violate MOS -- which was pointed out to you ab initio as the reason for the placement - other than your anti-MOS personal view.  That's not appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just explaining why I did what I did. Surely it's better to have the text flow well than worry about one set of eyes looking out of the page? We don't have to be slaves to the MOS. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cocaine?
100 grams a day? Really? 28 and a half 8-balls in one day? Heroic, I'd say! But I think you meant grains, not grams. 50.151.37.91 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Betty May. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304003301/http://www.boundarygallery.com/epstein/bettymay.htm to http://www.boundarygallery.com/epstein/bettymay.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betty May. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806002809/http://www.users.waitrose.com/~wrs/twenties.html to http://www.users.waitrose.com/~wrs/twenties.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)