Talk:Margaret Lockwood

Untitled
She died of cirrhosis; was she an alcoholic? Qzm (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section breaks and titles
The sections into which the body has been subdivided are completely arbitrary and misleading.

In the section "Family background and education", only the first paragraph is about her family background; the remainder of the section is about her early stage experiences. In the section "Film career", only the first paragraph is about her film career; the second paragraph is about her professional stage career, the third paragraph is about her television work, and the fourth paragraph is about her receipt of honours.

This really is not up to the standards of Wikipedia. The body must be subdivided into appropriate and appropriately titled sections. If there is no way to do this, then the body should not be subdivided. 98.211.124.12 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Age at death
If she died aged 73 then she would have been in her 74th year, not her 73rd. Probably should be changed to "...died aged 73" to save confusion. Flanker235 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of POV comment
I've made a minor edit removing a quote saying that '[after 1946's Wicked Lady, Lockwood] was to suffer what has been called "a cold streak of poor films which few other stars have endured."' Any objective examination of Lockwood's career demonstrates that this comment is a gross exaggeration, for example...

1946's Bedelia was described at the time as a 'notable box office attraction'.

1947's Jassy was the 7th highest grossing film at the UK box office that year.

1947's The White Unicorn was also described at the time as a 'notable box office attraction'.

Also, as indicated elsewhere in this article, until 1948/9 Lockwood continued to win UK awards for Best Film Actress and was regularly voted one of the most popular actresses in the country. Obviously this would not have occurred if she had been consistently making "poor films".

The article does note that after this point Lockwood was involved in some films that fared badly (and which the actress herself was unhappy with). I'd suggest that the various comments to that effect within the text are sufficient without the need to give undue prominence to a hyperbolic statement by an unheralded writer.

Also, while it is true that Lockwood's successful films were less successful in the US, this was generally speaking true of all British films in the 40s and 50s, so it is surely only reasonable to judge the careers of British actors starring in British films by their reception and reputation in Britain. Axad12 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of multiple spam links
Hi, this morning I’ve removed a further reference from this article, which had linked to the same web article mentioned in the previous note on this Talk page. I note that the same article had been linked, in some way or other, to virtually every Margaret Lockwood film on Wikipedia. I've now removed all of these links from the various articles on the basis that they were spam, for the following reasons: (I’ve placed these comments here on the main Margaret Lockwood talkpage, as this seemed the most appropriate place, rather than repeating the same argument on the pages for each of the films affected.) Most of the links were added to generic comments in the Wikipedia articles concerned, e.g. ‘This was an early appearance for Margaret Lockwood’ or ‘This was one of several films that Lockwood made with Carol Reed’, i.e. basic information which is easily obtained from the main Margaret Lockwood article on Wikipedia. (Note that this article, and its filmography, predates the linked web article and was almost certainly its main source). The links are therefore both unnecessary (WP:CITESPAM) and apparently circular (i.e. a source derived from Wikipedia being falsely presented here as a source for information within the article). Also, many of the links have been attached to comments on matters which the web article either does not mention, or only mentions very briefly indeed. So the links are also, in many cases, spurious (and thus again WP:CITESPAM). Also, some of the links were added gratuitously where one or two evidently more appropriate links (contemporary to the films’ releases) had already been added. So the links were unnecessary and inferior to ones that already existed (WP:OVERCITE). These are all classic signs of spam links which have been added solely to increase traffic to the target web article and which add nothing to Wikipedia. Also, the web article that had been repeatedly linked to contained no references and some of the statements make within it could not be verified. In addition, the author of the web article is the subject of a Wikipedia article which was originally written by the same user (Dutchy85) who added all of these spam links, which raises questions about possible WP:COI and general notability. While it would have to be admitted that on a minority of occasions the links relate to quotes where the author of the web article has expressed his opinion on the films concerned, it seems far from clear that he is sufficiently notable to be used as a recurring source of critical opinion in the ‘Critical Reception’ section of Wikipedia film articles. Finally, the user Dutchy85 seems to have been permanently blocked from Wikipedia for creating an almost never ending number of new articles (now deleted) about non-notable films, and evidently the user had some difficulties re: establishing what kind of subjects and sources were appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Hopefully this note clarifies the reasons for the removal of these apparently spam links. P.S. I’d suggest that two useful sources for the main article on Margaret Lockwood (and potentially the articles on individual films) may be the two biographies that have been published on Lockwood (by Hilton Tims, 1989 and Lyndsy Spence, 2016), neither of which are currently cited or referenced here. Axad12 (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)