Talk:Chiara Bottici

Secondary and Tertiary Resources
Writing to ask about the template message that flags this article for relying too much on primary resources vs secondary and tertiary resources? Most of the primary resources cited here are academic, edited publications from major publishers. The rest are secondary resources. The subject of the article is an academic and writer, so those sources seem to be integral to the description of her work. Similarly, a colleague of hers has references that are, for the majority, all primary. Looking for some fellow editors to provide some feedback, suggestions, or contributions that help resolve the flag.Grs246 (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At least a quarter of the references are to the subject's own work. It's fine to use primary sources under limited conditions, but as a tertiary source, we look to secondary source coverage to determine what is noteworthy about her work. Otherwise, summarizing an academic's own work easily veers into original research on the part of the Wikipedia editor, which is verbotten. (Again, we rely on the original research of established scholars/journalists.) The article you linked requires the same cleanup (and is arguably in much worse condition). (not watching, please )  czar  04:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Chiara-bottici-1.png