Talk:Forrest Tucker

Improvements to article
The lede is supposed to want you to read on and give a overview. The account of how he got started is referenced. The stories about his, well you know,are part of what makes him notable and there are abundant reverences.Overagainst (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you've re-added your contributions that I had reverted, this time putting in some references. However, you still have material that is unsourced or unreliably sourced; reads like a review; and contains effusive language such as puffery and editorializing. According to MOS:LEAD, "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Also, while I am certainly not suggesting information be censored, I find it hard to see how a fixation on Tucker's penis size is notable or particularly relevant compared to his body of work in films, television, and stage. It would be different of he were a pornographic film actor, where his penis would be featured. Why don't you think about the remarks I've made here, read some of the guidelines I've linked, and see if you can improve your additions with more complete references and encyclopedic style. --hulmem (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tucker was well-known in his day for his ginormous schlong. Seems relevant to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.163.235 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)