Talk:Kate Grenville

Novels
Do we need to have a link to a newspaper review on this page, when the same link is included on the novel's individual page? (I'm talking here about THE SECRET RIVER).

Also, while I'm here, why is Kate Grenville included as the author of all the novels when this is her page? This is pretty obvious, isn't it? I can understand including the co-authors for her non-fiction works, but don't see the point in her name appearing so often in the list of titles. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, Perry, I agree with you - ie, re the listing of her works. This is one of the first pages I started working on when I first became a Wiki editor about 10 mths ago. I really dislike the way her works are listed - whoever did it used one of those citation templates but I think it is inappropriate for listing an author's works on their page. I for one would be happy to see it changed. Oh, and I'm inclined to agree with you re the review too, given the novel has its own page. Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll get to and clean it up a bit. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm loathe to lose the information listed here so I think I'll need to create a page for each of the books. Might take a little longer, but Grenville is certainly an Australian novelist of importance and deserves such treatment. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Interview
I conducted an interview with Kate Grenville today during which we discussed in particular her entry in Wikipedia. She clarified some matter to me, including the matter of "family name" for herself and her siblings and thereby explained that the previous entry was in error in essence. In particular, she pointed out the obvious link he her name and her father's full name. Accordingly, I have removed that piece and amended various other matters, including the addition of a direct quote about the historical nature of her work. I discussed with her Wikipedia style and policy, and I have endeavoured to accord with her wishes and Wikipedia's requirements.- Peter Ellis - Talk 11:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also note that she expressly asked that her photograph (which I had taken of her, with her permission) be removed from her entry, and not be replaced.- Peter Ellis - Talk 03:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to the photo: Unfortunately her request that the photo be removed is not binding on Wikipedia. It is up to the editors of this page to decide if a photo should be used. And since many editors like to have an image at the top of an article to identify the subject, I suspect that they will choose to have one. If, on the other hand, she would consent to your taking another photo or if she would provide a photo under a free license, I suspect that editors would consent to a substitution.
 * With regard to the interview: I hate having to give you more bad news, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Obviously your personal knowledge can give you insight on where to go. But insofar as facts need verification, the article should cite published sources. —teb728 t c 23:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also in regards to the photo - the other option might be to write to her publishers for a publicity shot. This is available from them to use as required, ie it's generally free licence, though it might be necessary to cite the photographer. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, undoubtedly the publisher could provide a really nice photo. In that case see WP:COPYREQ for how to verify the permission. —teb728 t c 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a complete bibliography
This article needs a complete bibliography, a listing of all her books. 23:31, 22 November 2014


 * Firstly, please sign your comments. Secondly, the article already has a bibliography section, covering her short story collection, her novels and her non-fiction.  Was there something else that needed to be added?Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Career
"It has become one of Australia's best-loved novels..."

"Best-loved" is not a quantifiable variable recognized by the publishing industry; whether this phrase is meant to imply "best rated", "critically acclaimed", or "best selling", the statement is clearly an opinion and lacks a factual reference to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.134.191 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)