Talk:Sandra Kemp

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Revision[edit]

Hi, I've tried revising this article. I've changed the focus of the article from LCC to the subject. I've therefore mostly rewritten the introduction and cleaned up the career, publication and exhibition sections. I've also taken out the external links to LCC, as the blog is no longer hers, and the general link was never relevant to the subject.

Over half the article previously was the Criticism section, which was basically an account of a series of THE articles, using only the critical parts, and its tone made me worry it verged on being an attack article. I have therefore renamed it Controversy and rewritten it to reflect the balance of the original articles as well providing an additional Guardian reference. I have also removed several unsourced statements.

I think the result is a better article. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thank you, MaxwellDecoherence (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better balanced Cj1340 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]