Drew Barrymore was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed July 20, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 2, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted January 8, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 22, 2019. Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers 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 WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). LGBT studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force. Screenwriters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics 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.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business 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.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: August 14 to 20, 2016 (17th)

What the title says. Articles on celebrities include their scandals, oftentimes showing up within hours of breaking. Yet this has curiously been left out of her article, despite the fact that it's old news.

It leads me to believe that the exclusion of this controversy is in fact being intentionally done. If that's the case it's extremely disappointing and alarming. This site is supposed to have integrity. 63.155.55.221 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded 2600:1702:4100:42F0:312A:951D:638B:E118 (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article folks, Ms. Barrymore's recent action that has some characterizing her as a union strikebreaker - aka as a "scab" - has not been left out of the article - read the second paragraph in the 2020s section of the article, the paragraph that starts with "In September 2023, Barrymore crossed a WGA picket line to continue her syndicated TV talk show". Regardless of how people might feel about Ms. Barrymore's decision, Wikipedia articles about living people must rely on what reliable sources state about her action. For instance, social media posts might characterize what she has done as "scabby" but they're self-published personal opinions and, as such, are not considered a published/reliable/editorially-supervised source. Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The verb tense should be changed to basic past tense in this section. The future-in-the-past tense of "would apologize" and "would delete" is awkwardly and incorrectly-used. She simply "apologized" and "deleted." 2600:1700:5531:3810:D21:99DB:C403:B873 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that - done. Shearonink (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the lead, we would need reliable sources that claimed she was a scab. Do you have any reliable sources where the article's writer claimed she is one? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source? Open a dictionary, there's your source.

Scab

skăb, n.

An employee who continues work while others are on strike.

What more of a source do you need beyond the meaning of the word and her saying "I'm continuing to work" while the union is on strike?? 209.216.100.15 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the trades. Or the NY Times. Or CNN, People, even the NY Post...the subject of this article issued an update today. This discussion about using the word "scab" to describe her past action has become irrelevant. Shearonink (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So add that she is a prior scab/acab wannabe until (appropriate) backlash, including protests from WGA strikers? KeepItAccurate1.2 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is edited by consensus. Present editorial consensus is against characterizing the subject of this article as a "scab". Describing her in such terms is a POV/personal opinion, violates WP:BLPSTYLE and is obviously WP:CONTENTIOUS. We may all have our own opinions about what the subject has done or not done, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiled from reliable sources, not someone's personal blog. The controversy is already discussed at length in the article. If anyone disagrees, consider opening up a WP:Rfc. Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also commend the attention of the anonymous editors above to MOS:LABEL, which says we generally avoid using judgemental terms, at least not in Wikipedia's voice. Now, if someone prominent (like Fran Drescher) calls her a scab for this, that can be put in there, in quotes with attribution. But only then. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Daniel Case - MOS:LABEL/WP:CONTENTIOUS is the applicable guideline here. Though I have seen people using the term on various social media platforms, I haven't seen union leaders/prominent Hollywood pundits being quoted in the trades using the descriptor under discussion here. Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Drescher will, actually. Union leadership usually tries to stay above that; the person you call a scab might have enough friends to tip a later election against you. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worthwhile to mention the recent incident where a man rushed the stage and tried to so *something* to Drew Barrymore? It was a notable incident, but I am not sure if it is worth mentioning on her official page. I am sure that as a celebrity she has lots of weirdos obsessed with her -- letters, presents, videos -- but for one to make it that far? Scary. datagod (talk) 🍁 05:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]