Talk:Lydia O'Leary

Rejection of article on 29th March 2023

@InterstellarGamer12321 thank you for your comments on this draft. I have been watching this with interest and would like to discuss the decision to reject, in good faith. I think your suggestion of sectioning the article is reasonable, for legibility, and understand your point about the external links.

However, I feel that the notability criteria are being met in this article. We can see two print book monographs, a Who's Who reference, four separate articles from the New York Times, and local press coverage, amidst sundry references to professional and corporate websites. In particular, the article by Blumenthal is focussed on O'Leary's work in a significant way. This seems to meet traditional reliability criteria, and certainly exceeds some articles that I have seen on mainspace Wiki. I would ask for your reconsideration of this article, if the sections and external links are amended as you suggest.

Happy to discuss further. EriedgenArc (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @EriedgenArc and thank you for writing about your concerns related to my review of this draft. First of all, I did not reject the draft, but only declined it, meaning that it can be resubmitted. Secondly, I had no concerns about notability and did not mention notability in my decline reason or comment. This is because I agree that the subject is notable as the references you have pointed out have WP:SIGCOV of the subject. My concerns were mainly with the external links and the lack of any sectioning making the article seem like an essay even though the prose was fine. The referencing was also a bit sparse (I am talking about independent sources only) but as the article is not a WP:BLP this is not a major concern. The issues with the article (sectioning, external links) are all minor and can be fixed with relatively little effort. Once this is done the draft can be resubmitted and I will accept it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @InterstellarGamer12321, thanks so much for getting back to me and my apologies for the misunderstanding re. notability. I had conflated this with the reliable sources concerns you mentioned. You make a fair point about declining and rejection being different terms. Am I right in thinking that if the editor can add sections, as you suggest, and amend external links, that we may be on the way to publication? I appreciate your help and patience on this matter. EriedgenArc (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to accept the draft once these minor issues are fixed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. @MDockrayMiller please see above: if the article can be divided into headings, using the style formatting tools, that would be helpful. In terms of the external links @InterstellarGamer12321could you advise how you would like these to be presented? In scenarios where they are a citation, should they be removed or is it enough to just add an 'External Links' section in addition to what is already present? All good faith questions, hope we can resolve them! EriedgenArc (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say the external links should go into their own section at the bottom. The citations are fine: as long as the links satisfy what is ruled out at Wikipedia:External links and WP:MOS the issue will be fixed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 14:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, @InterstellarGamer12321 and @EriedgenArc ! I'm pretty new to this community so appreciate your expertise. I've added section headings and removed the external links (realized that all of those links are in the citations already anyway). I'll hit "resubmit" now. MDockrayMiller (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)