Talk:Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd at the Reference desk. |
 | Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2018. | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled Comment
editI have removed the NPOV tag as there was no indication as to the possible problems with the article. If anyone wishes to re-insert the NPOV tag then please comment on this page so that a discussion can take place about how to improve the article. 88.105.128.47 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Does not agree with FDR's bio
editThis page does not agree with the description of the relationship in FDR's biography.
- In what way does it not agree?71.223.160.37 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Untitled Comment
editI believe the last sentence regarding the 2000 tv show "Cheaters" should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the article and is an irrevelant anachronism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.41.196 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Done -- The last section talks about two TV shows, but the word 'Cheaters' is removed. -- AstroU (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Conflict?
edit"is considered by historians to have been a mistress" vs "the historical record, however, has established the romance beyond doubt." If it has been established beyond a doubt then it she should just be listed as a mistress. What does "considered by historians" even mean? Who else would be an authority on history aside from historians? 71.193.243.8 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Dubious references
editI have serious doubts about the accuracy of some of the references cited here. The Washington Times-Herald no longer existed in 1966, having been bought by and merged into the Washington Post in 1954. The Times-Herald name stayed on the masthead until 1973, but the paper's name was the Washington Post. There were three major papers in the D.C. area in 1966, the morning Post, and the afternoon Star and Daily News. The Times-Herald references should be verified. Mark Sublette (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Going for Good Article status
editI'm going to attempt in the coming days to improve this one to Good Article status. Since there's been a cleanup tag on the article for sometime, my guess is that this one isn't being actively watched. But in any case, I plan to take a WP:BRD approach--if you disagree with anything I've done, please revert, and I'll be glad to discuss. Thanks to everybody who's worked on this one to get it to this point. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)