Wikipedia:Peer review/Beatriz Romilly/archive1

Beatriz Romilly
I've listed this article for peer review because whilst I have listed the subject's career and a brief overview, I feel it might require some further input from editors more experienced in writing articles about actors.

Thanks, Osarius - Want a chat? 11:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

First, the strong points. The article's well structured and "well-cited", in the sense of having a decent number of citations. The absence of a photo is a pity. But the key problem's already been identified in the tag - there are nowhere near enough reliable secondary sources used to indicate that Ms Romilly warrants an article. To elaborate:
 * Source 1 is her own, self-published cv;
 * Sources 2 and 3 are commercial, promotional, casting websites;

I really don't think these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources.
 * Source 5 is the Globe advertisement for the show and does nothing but list Ms Romilly as a cast member;
 * Which leaves Source 4, the Guardian review. This describes Ms Romilly's performance as "feisty" and "peppery". It's exactly what you need, but it is the only cite, amongst about 57, that, I would suggest, meets the criteria for reliability and notability.

In a nutshell, there's not nearly enough to justify an article on the grounds of notability. If you can find more like Source 4, then throw them in. But a quick Google search suggests that will be a struggle. In which case, I just don't think the article is warranted. Can I ask why you think that it is? KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from dnllnd
I agree with. The page lacks reliable secondary sources, relying too heavily on Romilly's CV and third-party aggregate sites. The page would benefit from better sources and, if possible, more biographical information. Possible areas of interest that would align with biographies of living persons guidelines might be family history, upbringing or training. I did a quick Google search and didn't hit on anything promising, but I wonder if there may be more substantive coverage in Spanish media that could be used in keeping with WP:NOENG?--Dnllnd (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)