Talk:Gwendolyn Galsworth

Bibliography

While it is useful to have a list of the author's books, it's also important to include books & articles that are either a) about the subject (Galsworth) or b) about the field that she worked in. Did she inspire other scholars to research the fields that she wrote about? What did other scholars think of her work? Was it well-received or heavily criticized? Who were her critics and what did they say? It's important to include criticism, too, or the article could be dismissed as promotional.

For good or ill, Wikipedia values secondary sources (works written about Galsworth) more than primary sources (works written by Galsworth) because secondary sources are considered less biased. Think of it this way, an encyclopedia article about you would be quite different if it was written by a teacher or employer of yours versus what you would write about yourself. While your own thoughts about yourself would be valuable to a researcher, the evaluation by the teacher/employer would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

All the books seem to be self published too which makes notability even more problematic. Theroadislong (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)