Solared

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Solared/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Solared/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Solared! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Grace Dane Mazur

Hi, Solared, thanks for your message on my Talk page. I found your draft because the Wikipedia project group WP:WikiProject Women in Red has a bot that identifies draft biographies of women which have been declined. I made some small edits on your Mazur article because I thought that she probably does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, specifically WP:NAUTHOR, which says:

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

I think that you already had multiple reviews from independent reliable sources in the article (the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are all good sources).

So, some suggestions: have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia editors don't like seeing sources like Who's Who, e-commerce websites like Amazon, sources written by the subject of the article, or sources from publishers or other employers that the person has worked for. They are considered either not reliable, or not independent, or both. So, I would suggest that you take them out, or place them lower in the article or as External links. (I'm actually getting a 404 error when I try to access http://gracedanemazur.org/bio/, so perhaps she has deleted it!) Try to source the biographical details to info in the reviews as much as possible - and you may not need her exact date of birth, just a year (or even c. 1944). Many living people don't like to have their DOB online.

Are there other reviews of Trespass and Silk? If there are, that would help to establish that the author is notable. The three reviews for The Garden Party suggest that it might be a notable book, which could perhaps have an article about it, and then the author's name might be redirected (in search terms) to the article about the book (that would mean that when you search for the author, you find a result, but the result is the article about the book). So finding reviews of the other books, or profiles of the author written by other people in independent sources, would help make a stronger case for the author being notable. I have access to some journal databases, so I can see what I can find there too.

I would also suggest that you work on the structure of the article a bit. It's generally good to have one or two sentences at the top which say who the person is and what they're notable for (that is called the lead or lede), then have sections like 'Early life and education' and 'Career', or just 'Biography', followed by the Bibliography.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I'm happy to have another look, and I'll see what I can find in subscription databases. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this excellent (and rapid) response! I should be able to work on the article again sometime over the next few days, and I'll make any changes you suggested that haven't already been made. Solared (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)