Talk:Anika Molesworth

Thank you and amendments made

 * Amendments made from TheAafi review. Thank you for your suggestions to improve this page.

Amendments include; Formal tone, neutral point of view, reliable sources and removal of peacock terms. I would be honoured if the draft page and its new amendments are looked at before resubmission for publishing. This way I can avoid unwanted errors and time delays. Thank you for your assistance.
 * , well done! I think the article has enough improvements to be published. Does this woman have a birth year? That should probably be included. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
, I'm afraid that this article still has promotional language issues and the way that citations have been provided is a significant hurdle for new page reviewers. In addition to complying with the conflict of interest disclosure that I have posted on your user talk page, can you identify the WP:THREE best sources in the article that establish this subject's WP:GNG notability? signed,Rosguill talk 01:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , given that you approved this page out of draft space, you may be able to help with identifying the sources that establish the subject's notability. signed,Rosguill talk 01:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say these three do the best job at that:  . All of these are more than just a passing mention. She also has received numerous awards, which are listed in the article, albeit none too significant. While not included, here is another article:  Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not too taken by those sources. The Marie Claire coverage has essentially nothing independent to say about Molesworth, the Deakin University media release is non-independent, and the Rural Weekly article is local news with maybe two paragraphs of independent coverage if we're being generous. signed,Rosguill talk 01:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do see what you mean. But what is the indication to you that there is a potential conflict of interest? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The initial editor's contribution history is highly suggestive of someone with a vested interest in promoting the subject, and they also claimed the professional headshot of the subject, File:Anika Molesworth .jpg, as their own work. signed,Rosguill talk 02:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, the photo attribution definitely is either a lie or a dead giveaway. Nice catch. I guess it's a good thing you're an experienced editor to help me out. So should it be moved back to draftspace for now, or wait and see what the author says? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give Eolophusroseicapilla a few days to respond, but at this point the next step should probably be AfD if notability can't be demonstrated. signed,Rosguill talk 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , since another editor apparently marked this as reviewed without stopping by here, I took another look at the sourcing and found a few examples that leave me satisfied: Source 42 and source 25 are quality coverage, and Source 34 reports an award conferred by a reliable source. signed,Rosguill talk 16:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the article will be fine after a careful once-over to check for bias from the original author. Speaking of which, it would be nice to get some input from Eolophusroseicapilla regarding the possible conflict of interest. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * new reputable references added to substantiate work and organisational claims, and notability also updated (2020 award and reference included)Joey3465! (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Awards without reliable references removed. All awards checked for legitimacy and confirmed to address above comments on notability of subject.Littlemaggie1 (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)