Talk:Fiona Wright

Unreliable references?
Some listed references do not seem to be reliable. Sources such as this or this are product listing and not independent of the subject. This source has no editorial and doesn't seem to be reliable. I tagged the page with unreliable sources so any other editor can improve it. -- Luke J. talk 15:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow why you claim that the "Best Australian Writing" or "Black in books" references are unreliable. They are primary sources, which is not ideal, but that is a different matter from being unreliable: primary sources are acceptable to support some types of statements (see WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.")   The statements which these refs support concern Wright's work being inclued in these specific poetry collections, which is clearly stated in both sources.  You also claim that those sources are not independent of the subject, which is not apparent and the source appears to meet the req;uirements of WP:INDEPENDENT, so what is your reasoning for this claim? Apart from that, it leaves just one source you are challenging, and that would be better handled by placing a Better source tag inline. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)