Talk:Daisy Deomampo

Re-assess article
I've re-assessed the article and it looks like it would be at least stub class at this point in time. It still needs more sourcing, especially non-WP:PRIMARY sourcing, meaning that you should have more sourcing that hasn't been released by Deomampo or a person/organization/etc that is affiliated with her. Something that you should be careful about is using terms like "latest", since that's a term that can quickly become dated. You should instead use something like "In 2017 Deomampo released...", as that puts a definite date on it and even if she releases more work after that, it won't become dated like the term latest would. I would also like you to locate the review by Rayna Rapp, if you are going to cite it in the article. The reason for this is that you need to make sure that it's a review and not a book blurb. What I mean by this is that sometimes publishers will reach out to people with the specific intent to get positive quotes to put on the cover of a book, in order to promote it. These are sometimes billed as reviews or reception, but because they were specifically solicited by the publisher for promotion purposes from people that are involved with the publisher (ie, people who work for or publish through them or want to get a similar positive remark) and/or because they were written with the intent to be positive (ie, they will not be negative), they are seen as primary sources. Another thing that works against book blurbs is that what you see on the page is the entirety of what the person wrote, which doesn't make it very in-depth. If you can find the full review, this will help out a lot. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)