Talk:Carol Mavor

Recent unsourced additions
In addition to reverting recent copyvio (now revision-deleted), I have reverted a subsequent edit that added unsourced (including DOB) and, in some cases, outright promotional content cited to material already covered neutrally elsewhere in the article. I'm opening the discussion here per WP:BRD to discuss ways to incorporate additional material without violating basic Wikipedia policies on copyright and BLP content. I invite to participate, as well as any other interested parties. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the nature and detail of the information added, I also invite to disclose any connection to the article's subject, per the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use and Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, it looks like it was taken from her website and could be copyvio, certainly not independent Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, reading back I can see what you mean by content sounding promotional, which I wrote in an effort to prove the notability of the subject, and I see where it is directly from the subjects website. To respond to your request about disclosure of my connection to the subject, I saw a guest lecture by this professor and have read some of their books which I find interesting.

I would still like to edit the introductory paragraph on the page to at least replace the titles of work by the subject with newer and more notable ones. In addition I was hoping to add some reviews of her more recent books to the section 'Writing'. Question: How come the 'Education' section is not valid? Is it just because it difficult to verify, and if so, can I provide better sources and keep it, or would you recommend not including it? --AlbertineAurelian (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to add newer work, probably the best place to start is to add a brief, neutral-point-of-view summary of the work supported by citations to reviews from reliable sources (like the ones already in the article, e.g. Guardian, TLS, LA Times) to the "Writing" section, following the model of the existing sections, and being sure to include any negative as well as positive commentary from the reviews. Two quick points: One, the lead paragraph (per MOS:LEAD) summarizes the article's contents, so reliably-sourced content should generally be added to the article text before it is added to the lead. Two, "notable" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia related to coverage in independent, reliable sources, so a book that is newer (or more interesting, or more timely, or for sale right now at your local bookseller) is not necessarily more notable in Wikipedia terms.As for the education information, the article already mentions her PhD. Generally we rely on university websites or on reliable source coverage (e.g. an article about the subject in The Guardian) for that information. But for academics on Wikipedia the pedigree is not a contributor to notability, and generally it looks like puffery to try to add all of the different people someone may have had contact with as an undergrad or grad student. So, if you have a reliable, independent source for her education information that actually adds to the information that is already in the article and doesn't just puff up the article subject, great. If you aren't sure about whether Wikipedia considers a source reliable, you can read more about reliable sources here. Bakazaka (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have now just added one extra paragraph to the Writing section on another book not currently mentioned, Black and Blue, and tried to keep the tone neutral and informative and to source different reviews with balanced quotes. I hope this style of writing is acceptable for Wikipedia, and if approved I will continue to add if appropriate. AlbertineAurelian (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're making an effort to put all of the removed material back in with sourcing, which is good, but please do not cite claims to sources that do not support them, as you did with the claim about the subject's master's degree cited to a book that does not mention it. I have removed that unsupported claim. Bakazaka (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also note that a contributor bio in an edited collection is not an independent source, as those blurbs are typically provided by the author. Clearly that is the case here, as the text matches the text of bios on Mavor's own publications. Bakazaka (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)