Talk:Anne Ellis

Ann or Anne?
Title and lead differ: if sources are inconsistent, say so. Pam D  08:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it's Anne. I think I fixed it. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

A. E. Ellis
No evidence I see that she used that name, but the McFarland source shows her writing as "AE" so needs to be added to the dab page at AE. Pam D  08:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I though I saw her initials used, maybe for a collection of her papers or in the collection of her papers? I see there is another author who used the A. E. Ellis name as a pseudonym and also wrote about sanitoriums so that perhaps grts a bit confusing. I have removed the redirect request for now as I couldn't find where I saw it. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Query about Decline
@Pbritti There only seems to be one, not particularly controversial, unsourced statement, which doesn't seem enough to decline as "improperly written". Could you clarify what you mean by "focus on encyclopedia content"? It's not clear to me, and presumably also not clear to the editor who created the draft. Thanks. Pam D  08:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This article requires further incubation before it is suitable for the mainspace. Even if a subject meets WP:GNG, that does not mean that the coverage within the article is sufficient to demonstrate that notability. The article is incomplete; once completed it can be passed on up to the mainspace. ~ Pbritti (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I still find it very unclear in what way you find the article "incomplete": please be more constructive. Thanks. Pam  D  08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * After all, everything short of a FA is "incomplete". Pam  D  08:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There were uncited statements, inaccurate/improperly formatted citations, and failures to reflect the contents of reliable sources. A review of her work was only used to mention that a museum had an exhibit on her—and the draft phrased this information as though it was current rather than older than me (and boy do my joints already creak). With all these issues, the draft was not worthy of the mainspace. ~ Pbritti (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was by no means clear from your review, and gives editors something to work on now. Pam  D  08:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No need for parting blows—especially inaccurate ones (I explained with additional detail on FloridaArmy's talk page when asked). ~ Pbritti (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * TBH if I'd looked at the page history I'd have agreed with your "I shouldn't have to make these corrections on an experienced user's submission." and moved on - I'd lost track of which of various editors posting at Talk:Women in Red had started this draft. But I've now put in quite a bit of the work they should have done, so perhaps you could have another look?  Pam  D  09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti Ah, having read the editor's talk page I see I've been paddling in troubled waters here. I should stick to my usual plan of not editing about Americans, on the grounds that there are plenty of American editors to do so. Happy Editing! Pam  D  09:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would glad take a look and I intend to actually try and do some improvements of my own. I have spent a lot of time on Colorado mining-adjacent biographies and this is absolutely a woman worthy of her own article spot in that history. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm moving this mainspace. Thank you, FA for starting it, and Pam, for the improvements. Levivich (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)