DaraUriel

Welcome!

Hello, DaraUriel, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! I have some notes for you:

• I made some tweaks to the lead to tighten it a little, mostly just for flow and style.

• Be extremely careful with sourcing. You want to avoid self-published sources since they typically don't have good or any editorial oversight or processes in place to really thoroughly verify claims. It's honestly not the strongest possible source. The following sources are ones that shouldn't be used:

1. 49th Shelf is a self-published source that hosts reader reviews, meaning that they accept content with anyone. This shouldn't be used to back up any information.
2. Québec Reads poses the same issues. While they don't post content from everyone, they still don't have any information about their editorial and verification processes.
3. Lost in the Rain is a self-published blog with the same issues as the prior site.

With sourcing in general, you want to make sure that the source mentions and covers the novel. Avoid using sourcing that doesn't discuss the book, as this can be seen as original research. More on that in the next point, though. Back to the subject of sourcing, be very careful when it comes to any student run content. The general consensus on student newspapers, journals, and websites is that they run a higher risk of having incorrect material or not having as rigorous an editorial/verification process as traditional newspapers and journals would, even though they may be official student publications of a university. The exception would of course be if the outlet is widely seen as a reliable source by reliable sources such as academic and scholarly sources and/or have received a major award for their work. I would be leery of Three Percent, however the piece in question was written by Peter McCambridge, who is typically seen as a reliable source himself.

• I saw that there were several sources like this that were used to back up claims, despite the source not actually being about or mentioning the book. The issue with things like this is that it's considered original research because you're using the source to draw your own claims and conclusions. Even if the content seems like it should be correct, it's still original research. We can only summarize existing sourcing that discusses Suzanne.

The historic background section looks to be based entirely on sourcing that doesn't actually mention Suzanne Meloche, so this section would be seen as original research since this is your summary of things that you state would have influenced or impacted her or that she would have experienced. These are things that, if they're in the book, should already be in the plot synopsis section. If they're not, then they should really only be summarized here if there is sourcing that explicitly mentions them. As such, this also runs the risk of being seen as redundant.

Now all of that said, I think that you have a good base here. Essentially what I would do would be to remove the historic background section and to remove any original research. I would also recommend looking for additional sourcing in academic and scholarly databases, as this is likely to have been covered there. This is definitely a notable book and I think that you chose well with this. I also wanted to give you a link to a brochure about creating book articles, which could be helpful in further refining the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Suzanne (Novel) has been accepted

Suzanne (Novel), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)