Talk:Mara Rockliff

Proposed changes to this article
I am moving the following from my Talk Page to here to allow more editor to be invovled in the conversation. Rublamb (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to ask if you'd be open to a reorganization of this article. Because your original is so comprehensive, it's hard to distinguish the more notable works, awards, commentary, etc. from the less notable. I talked with an experienced Wikipedia editor who suggested separating out much of your material into pages for the individual works, which I would be happy to do. For the author page, I'd like to propose this revised version: User:Mitulino/sandbox.

Mitulino (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mitulino and @Rachel Helps (BYU): Thanks for asking. I have no problem with a reorganization or additions to this article. However, your proposed draft is not a reorganization but a deep cut, taking the article's prose from 1195 words to 616 words, not including your proposed cuts to the lists of publications. I'm not sure why you would want to make cuts that would take a B class article back to a C or start class. Instead, your edits to this article should be toward GA status, something I am currently working on for all of my B class articles.
 * The other editor's suggestion for stand alone articles about specific books is common in Wikipedia. For example, if you look at Jane Austin, you will find a comprehensive overview of her work, with links to articles about specific volumes. Comprehensive being the ultimate goal of the best Wikipedia articles. At this time, the Rockliff article lacks the content needed to be split into a book article. That would be something you would need to start from scratch. However, it can be challenging to find secondary sources to create a good stand-alone article about a book. Even aritcles I have reviewed for books by Judy Blume suffer from a lack of sources.
 * So, I support you desire to change the current article to call attention to specific books rather than going for new articles. My approach would be one of two strategies. Firstly, you could add a new section on Notable Works (or similar title) where you could go into more detail about the plots of the selected books. Another approach would be to divide the existing text into subsections such as Book A, Book B, As Pen Name X, Series, Other Publications, etc., adding content as appropriate. I have used both techniques successfully in many articles, especially with architects who have body of work as well as high profile projects. The biggest challenge with subsections is finding balance between topical entries on specific books and a chronological overview of an author's works. Honestly, this article would benefit from subsections; this is probably something I would do in preperation for a GA review. Certainly a new section would be the appropriate way to add your content on censorship. And, as the former chair of the Virginia Library Association's intellectual freemdom committee, I do support the inclusion of that information.
 * I have no problem with your sugestion of an awards table, although prose would be the preferred improvement per MOS. In terms of minor awards vs. major awards, there are several ways these are distinguished in Wikipedia. Mid-level awards tend to lack links to articles in Wikipedia, while major awards will always have links to articles about the award and/or the presenting organization. Secondly, major awards are, as in this case, noted in the intro to the article. I don't agree with cutting a mid-level awards (if sourced) to make "major" awards stand out more—as this is unnecessary for the reasons stated. Rublamb (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm not sure if an author's Wikipedia page is the right place to put detailed information about reviews of some or all of their works. This is a difficult problem; often with authors who have only written one or two books, those reviews are what help with notability. But when they are not necessary for notability, it is possible to be overly detailed about individual books. I would caution you against overly identifying with the page as "yours" (although I sympathize with the feeling of being responsible for text you've written)--Wikipedia belongs to us all. Certainly, the "Career" section is too long and should be organized, maybe into separate sections for pseudonymous works or series. Barkeep49, you're very experienced with author and book pages--what is your opinion on information about lots of individual books in the body of an author's page? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rachel Helps (BYU), As I stated, I have no issue with someone organzing or improving this article. This is not about being protective of content I created but about whether or not there is a need to significantly change an article that was independently assessed as B class. There is a huge difference between organizing text into sections, copy editing, or enhancing content toward GA status and your proposal of cutting 2/3 of an article and the majority of the listed publications. Also, since contemporary children's books rarely are included in books and journals of literary criticism, reviews are virtually the only reliable secondary source for this type of article. Without the reviews, there would be no case for notablity for this author. Rublamb (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rublamb (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My thought is that the career section isn't ideal but is OK for a C class article. I suspect some of her books are themselves notable and could be spun out into their own pages where those would fit better and then linked from here to there to let readers who want those details get it. Her career section could then focus more on a narrative of that career accompanied by a bibliography of her works and a new section, if sourcing exists, that examines her works collectively noticing similarities in themes and the like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Barkeep49: Any thoughts on the use of subsections within the career section? I originally did not have subsections, @Rachel Helps (BYU) wanted a way to call attention to specific books and this seemed a reasable solution. Some of subsections are shorter than I would like. I would add more content but sources are lacking at this time. Rublamb (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My comments were made after their introduction, and so in addition to what I've said above I will say it's certainly much improved over not having them. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So currently the books do not appear to be in any order. Can someone tell me whether the order should be chronological, reverse chronological (most recent first), or alphabetical? If Wikipedia doesn't have any standard, my call would be reverse chronological. Mitulino (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When presented in list format Wikipedia uses chronological order. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the publication lists, they are in chronological order which is correct per MOS. Rublamb (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I was asking about the Career section, which you divided into subsections by title as discussed above. Most of the subsections are by title, which appear in random order. Should those be chronological as well? Mitulino (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer an overview that is in chronological order as that is the usual way to present someone's life, but this is not a hard rule. As I mentioned above, the biggest challenge with subsections can be finding a balance between chronological order and logical topical divisions. For example, a catch-all section on Other Publications is never going to be in publication order with other subsections; this can also impact sequels which pair nicely together topically but may be published years apart. I did a quick review of the career section: Try It was out of order (because it was origially connected to the intro on marginalized topics), so I went ahead and moved it to a chronological position. The subsections are now in chronological order with the exception of the presidential pairing the the catch-all final section. Or am I missing something? Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of excluding book reviews from the article, relevance is important to consider. Regardless of the author's notability, adding lots of details and quoting from newspaper reviews of the book adds a lot of medium-relevance details make the article much harder to digest. It leaves the article unbalanced—it is about the author, not a summary of her work. The quotations from newspaper/Kirkus reviews in particular make the writing border on being non-NPOV. An unstructured list of works with book reviews is less coherent, readable and relevant than organizing the information in such a way that it relates to the author and the author's relation to broader events, along with a list of works. I think the sandbox version linked above is a big improvement—would there be consensus using that as a starting point for a reorganization of the article?

User:Rublamb, I understand why you would want to keep work that you've significantly contributed to, and you are justly proud of working towards a B class article. Nevertheless, all articles can continue to be improved, and I think restructuring the article along the lines of the proposed revision significantly improves it, even if the quantitative volume of content is less. — Jch  thys  21:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jchthys: Thanks for your feedback. Although the proposed draft might read better, is also flawed as it includes content that is not backed by a source (such as stating which book is the author's most popular) and lists that do not conform to MOS (reverse date order rather than date order). Because this went through an Articles for Creation review, all content was sourced and reliable at the time it was published and was also rated B class. I do not consider this to be the best example of my work and recognize that the article could be improved in style and content, as has happened with several other editors. However, I don't believe removing sourced (and verified) content and replacing it with unsourced content is an improvement–even if the prose flows better. I also have concerns about an unregistered editor that refers to Start class articles for best practices rather than GA or FA articles. Maybe my bias toward experienced editors is unfair to a new editor, but my response is not personal. (I have written more than 100 articles that have hundreds of updates by other editors). If style and format are the issue, we can always tag the article for the Guild of Copy Editors and have a neutral editor have at it. Again, thanks for taking the time to look at this. Rublamb (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jchthys: I went back and looked at the proposed draft and I do understand your point about readability. There is a section that is unsourced and other comments that are not backed by the listed sources. I believe I have found the source--the author's website. At least, that is the only place I can find that makes certain statements. Rublamb (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go over the sandbox version in more detail before I can make any more concrete suggestions—I am sure it could use some revision and sourcing. I guess what I want is to make sure before I do improvement work that there is some amount of consensus about the ideal structure of the article. The B class tag is helpful in terms of editing priorities, but I wouldn't want it to stifle continuous or needed improvement. My issues with the article as it stands have to do with it being less about the subject and more a loosely organized collection of facts and cited opinions about the author's works; I know WP:REL isn't policy, but I think it's helpful here, especially the part about being wary about non-NPOV content in medium-relevance information. If I can work towards a more cohesive and author-centric article that is also sourced properly and otherwise in line with article guidelines, I'd like to do so. In short, I want to get on the same page about the direction the article is best taken in before I do significant work towards a better version of the article in a structure more similar to the sandbox. (And thanks, User:Rublamb, for noting the specific issues with the existing sandbox version.) —  Jch  thys  11:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your assitance is appreciated! I recall slapping this article together quickly when there was a debate as to her notability. The B rating was probably based on the quality of sources more than style, but it does mean we have a solid base to work with. I am finishing a major project and will give this more consideration. Last night, I found new sources that provided some early career info which I have added. The sub-sections for books is new, based on other editor's suggestions to this discussion. To me, it breaks up the prose and pushes the emphasis on the books, rather than the author. Something to ponder. Rublamb (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Date of Birth
@Jchthys and @User:Rachel Helps (BYU)]": There has been a difference of opinion as to whether or not it is permissable to calculate a year of birth from a source where the person states their age. Firstly, the source used was not a primary source; this info came from an ariticle, not public records. However, its looks like Rachel Helps removed all the sources when she made an edit to the sentencce of the article. (Those or other sources need to be included to back the claim that this person is a author, not just the birth date). Secondly, this specific scenario is disussed in [[WP:BLPPRIVACY WP:DOB, and clearly allows for both the date caluculation from age and from the person stating their age. In fact, this policy even allows age collection from social media, giving a much lower threshhold than the source I used. Please review the MOS section I am citing and restore the missing content. I will track down the missing sources. Rublamb (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, can you please track down the missing sources? I want to note the following points from the pages you cite: "the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified"; "[o]riginal research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth". I don't see anything that suggests personal information of this sort should be inferred and included, especially if it doesn't exist in "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". A social media post is a very situation, as in that case the subject is actively making that information public. I hope you understand erring on the side of caution (WP:BLP) until there is consensus both on the source in question as well as the MOS on the topic of inferred dates for living individuals. —  Jch  thys  00:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I consider myself pretty strict on the privacy issue and have removed DOB from dozens of articles. In this case, the author states her age in a published interview—meeting the requirement in WP:DOB. The source is now restored for your consideration. (I also updated the lede to reflect the source rather than the other editor's opinion). However, there is another privacy issue with this article that I could use some help with. At one point, the early life and personal life sections were removed by another editor, indicating that this was the author's wish. These were really short sections, maybe two sentences each. One data point was that the author went to Brown. Another was that she lives in Pennsylvania with her family. Oh, and that she is Jewish. I don't know the relation of the person who removed the content to the subject of the article, but have added back some of that content in a Personal life section because it is backed by several sources, including her publisher and her general bio for public appearances. However, maybe I should remove the reference to her membership to the literary fraternity as that was only found in a fraternity magazine? Thoughts? Note that she is included in List of St. Anthony Hall members which is how I first discovered that she lacked an article. Rublamb (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source—I think "born 1969 or 1970" might be better based on that? On the other privacy question, my thoughts are that content from the publisher and general bio make those both worthy of inclusion and in line with privacy guidelines. For the literary fraternity: I think it's better left out—a fraternity magazine isn't a third-party source, so I would argue this fact doesn't meet the standard of having an independent source demonstrating that it's worth including for a general audience. The privacy concern is also relevant; I think WP:NPF speaks to cases like this. —  Jch  thys  10:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do actually have one more question about the birth year. Do we know that the interview was published right after the interview took place? If not, that involves another assumption about the accuracy of that information. Because the age given in that interview is an aside, not core to the reporting, would it be correct to say it's less relevant and reliable than it might have been from, say, a publisher bio giving year of birth? —  Jch  thys
 * Good question with regards to the interview date. Local newspapers don't hold articles for long periods, unlike magazines. So there is no reason to believe that it is more than a month out from publication. Regardless, it is safe to say that the interview took place between January (when the book was published) and July (when the article was published). Also, the editor claiming to represent the author did not remove the birthdate which is a tacit confirmation. I recall also finding Rockliff's age mentioned in interviews on blogs, which are not usable for Wikipedia but are liked on the author's website. Of course, the guideline is to remove/leave out if in doubt. I just felt pretty good about this one based on the cited source. Also, thanks for looking at the personal info. I will remove the St. A reference unless another source is identified. Rublamb (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed draft
Mitulino and Rachel Helps (BYU): After my discussion wth @Jchthys, I realized that my prior repsonse to your proposed draft came across as defending my work, rather than explaining my concerns about your work. As I mentioned above, I do like the flow of your prose. However, I do not believe your draft is ready for publication nor do I find it a better option when considering Wikipedia's goals and guidelines. My concerns are as follows: Rublamb (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The entire lede and key details of the career section are unsourced. Some of this content appears to be from the author's website
 * 2) Two of the eight sources are press releases which ara not appropriate for Wikipedia
 * 3) A quote is used from an article written by the author, rather than from a secondary source
 * 4) The publication list does not conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS). The books are presented in reverse date order and lack either ISBN or sources
 * 5) The Awards section is unsourced
 * 6) The book banning incident is great to include but goes into too much detail that is not about the author or her book. In addition, its length gives undo weight to this minor incident when compare to the span of her career.
 * 7) One citation lists the wrong author and another fails to include the publication name (The New York Times).
 * Thank you for breaking all of this down (and of course for always keeping Wikipedia's guidelines in mind)! These are definitely concerns that need to be addressed—I'll try to work on this (or have a go at yet another draft) before suggesting a wholesale edit at the present moment. —  Jch  thys  16:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)