Talk:Langley Fox

Review
Good start! I did some copyediting and might have left a few templates. The most important thing to improve is tone. Right now it reads as very opinionated, as if Wikipedia says her "subjects vary." So instead, foreground the secondary source more. "According to one review, her work was described as...."

Next steps could include an: - Reagle (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * a more encyclopedic tone
 * categories
 * maybe a photo (?)
 * make sure it's not a Orphan

Hi!

I went through and edited for tone and tried to make things sound more neutral and encyclopedic, or more clear and precise according to the perfect article wikipedia page. I think adding more to the infobox could be a good next step, and maybe mentioning that she is the director of the Kiss video in the intro might provide more relevance. i'll keep going through to add some more tone fixes--I think adding in some additional source references like Prof. Reagle suggested would be a good start. This was really fascinating to read, though!

-EH9890 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability?
The only notability seems to be that she's someone's great-granddaughter. Not too surprised if the article is an orphan, then. Valetude (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)