Talk:Gareth Powell

re Edits
Hi Perseus25, and thanks muchly for your work on the draft. A few bits and pieces:
 * 1) Where an article uses a particular citation style, it's generally considered correct to continue to use that citation style per WP:CITEVAR (also bots will update deadlinks which use cite templates, but am not sure if they will for barerefs). Additionally at this edit, for example, your change to the named reference means that instead of a single reference with multiple uses, there are now two separate references -- see the original reference 2 here.
 * 2) Sorgai, as a WP:PRIMARY source is good for personal information and as a pointer to further research, but one needs to be really careful/selective about what is used, even though what can be verified from secondary sources information make Powell's recollections appear to be fairly reliable. The SF in paperback claim really needs to be a secondary reliable source, since it looks like Ballantine was publishing them a decade earlier.
 * 3) (Infoboxes are a bit of a fraught topic) I'll going to clip the books listed as notable works, because they're really not that notable. It'd be difficult to justify a separate article for any of them, and even for Powell they wouldn't be in the top 5 or maybe even top 10 things he should be noted for.
 * 4) There's a couple of quotes you've added that are germane to Robbins and The Carpetbaggers but don't illuminate (part of) who Powell was (whereas the Weybright, Wardle, and Frith quotes do). (ref WP:COATRACK)

Anyway, thanks again, and I'll have a further go at editing things. No problem if you want to discuss these matters or anything else further. Cheers ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Hydronium Hydroxide, Great to see this article published. I am happy with your edits. Thank you for your kind comments and also for your detailed Wikipedia advice and tips. I am definitely still learning! -- Best wishes from Perseus25 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Article published
Draft is finally published. It could probably use a pair or two of fresh eyes if you're inclined to look over the article. ( Ping Perseus25 ) Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Superb effort! Thanks immensely for all your work ( thanks, too for your contributions). You've done Gareth Powell proud with a model of what a Wikipedia article should be and a worthy addition to the sum of human knowledge. -- Jmc (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though it's definitely not entirely there yet -- a few too many annoying gaps. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)