Talk:Storyteller (Silko book)

Beginning to Edit the Storyteller (Silko Book Page)
will overhaul current page, deleting things that do not have citations- have incorporated the verifiable information from the current page into the pieces of the article I will be adding. Let me know if you have any questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasiltheCat2 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- Students in the Wiki Education course for Later Indigenous Literatures have been working this semester to fix the issues with this page from 2016, as you noted in your March 2019 template flag. Do you think the template flag is ready for removal? The students in this class (along with me, the insturtcor) were not affiliated with the page before these new edits. We appreciate your help and advice. CC: VP2019 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've removed the Template:Unreferenced because it no longer applies. For reference, any editor can remove maintenance templates in good faith as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal when they feel the relevant issue has been sufficiently addressed; if someone disagree and restores the template, just follow WP:BRD and avoid WP:EW. I left the other template because I'm not sure whether WP:NBOOK has been met. I explain more about this below. Is the article intended to be about the book or the author? Obviously in either case, there is going to be information about one in the other, but this article seems to try to do a little too much of both, which is not really a great idea. I don't think the author subsection is really needed since that information is likely in the article about the author. Anyway, I could just be not reading it correctly, but it seems that way to me. If it's mainly about the book, then you need to establish WP:NBOOK; if it's mainly about the author, you need to establish WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. Another thing is that I'm not sure a photo of the author's dad is really needed and that seems like a bit of a promotional/undue type of image use. His contributions to the book, of course, should be noted if reliably sourced, but a photo seems a bit too much to me. Same kinda goes for the photo of the author reading since it's not something really essential to the reader's understanding. Once again though, others might feel differently. Overall, the article seems much better than it was when I first came across it; if you'd like a more comprehensive review, you can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books since the editors of that WikiProject might be able to provide more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I also agree that the author section doesn't really need to be in the article. As a general rule of thumb an author section in a book article should only cover the author as it relates to this specific book. So for example, if the book draws on a specific part of the author's life, this could be included in say, a development section. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and, Thank you both for your suggestions! Your feedback is really important to us as we continue to work on this article. In the coming days, we will be moving the author information to the top of the article. Due to the unique structure of the book and the autobiographical nature, the information on the author and her influences are crucial for the page.
 * I also feel that the photo of Lee Marmon should stay in the article. Over twenty of his photographs appear in the newest edition of the book, making him the author of a significant portion of the book.
 * Also, I am thinking we should remove the “notability headline”, as the book meets notability guidelines One and Four, in addition to have been on several best-sellers lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgw212 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . A couple of things.
 * Please sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do this, please see WP:SIGN. The easiest way to sign a post is WP:TILDE, but there are a few other options as well. Signing your posts makes it easier for others to know who posted what and when without having to dig through the page history. In addition, ping notifications don't work if you don't sign your post or come back to sign it after the fact; so, neither myself or were notified of your comment. Many times this doesn't matter because most likely (as in my case) the relevant page is being watched so the person whose attention you're trying to finds out indirectly, but some editors keep their watchlists as short as possible or have them set up to only be informed of the most recent edit; so, they might not notice your post.
 * Please try to avoid using "we" when discussing changes to an article or edits to Wikipedia. A sort of Wikipedia mantra is "one person per account"; so, when you say "we continue to work on the article" or "we will be moving...", others might mistake it for WP:MEAT, WP:ROLE or WP:SHAREDACCOUNT, all of which can lead to problems quite quickly. Moreover, it might also be seen as an attempt to exert some kind of ownership over article content which is not really a good idea in a collaborative editing project like Wikipedia. Any changes you (i.e. "you" as "a person" or "you" as "a group") make to the article are subject to the same Wikipedia policies and guidelines and any other editor; no special editorial control is granted to students editing as part as a Wiki-Ed course regardless of whether they are being graded on their edits. In fact, it might be best for you to be WP:CAUTIOUS before making any major changes to give other editors who are a little more experienced in the ways of Wikipedia a chance to provide some feedback. You can be WP:BOLD and in most cases this is fine, but what you add can be changed or even undone by any other editor. If that happens, follow WP:DR.
 * If you believe the book to meet WP:NBOOK, then follow WP:MTR and remove the "Notability" template; as long as your removing the template in good faith, there shouldn't be problem with the edit itself. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. Leaving no edit summary, it pretty much a guaranteed way to get the edit reverted regardless. Now, if someone disagrees with your assessment and re-adds the template, then follow WP:BRD and discuss things on this talk page. If you want more feedback because you're not sure about NBOOK, you can ask at WP:THQ or even WT:BOOK.
 * Your point about the adding content about the author makes some sense, but there doesn't need to be a subsection titled author and there doesn't need to be any mentions of awards she's received. The article is about the book, not her, and content about her really belongs in Leslie Marmon Silko. In fact, the "Background" section probably doesn't need any subsections at all. Either better incorporate the information into the section or move it to it's own stand-alone level-two section.
 * I disagree about the photo of Lee Marmon. If you want to elaborate on his contributions to the book, then try and do so with sourced critical commentary. The photo can be seen in the Wikipedia article written about him which is good enough. There are lots of people who probably contribute to the publication of a book one way or another, but Wikipedia doesn't necessarily need to see a photo of them to understand this. If he's officially referred to as a "co-writer" of the book, then the article should reflect that. If you can find a freely licensed photo of his to use as a representative example of the kinds of photos he contributed to the book in place of File:POble Laguna.jpg, then that might make sense. A picture of her dad smiling in front of one of his photos (even if it's used in the book) in this article, however, seems a sort of image WP:UNDUE, a type of image WP:Namechecking and something which is more appropriate for the author's personal websites or social media pages than a Wikipedia article about the book. The focus of the file is her dad (the photo in the background is basically incidental or otherwise de minimis so it's copyright status is not really an issue), and I don't think a consensus for the this type of file use in this particular article would be established if discussed at WP:FFD.
 * -- Perhaps, Shalor (Wiki Ed) or other editors may feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Due to the significant amount of research done on this novel and the fact that it does meet notability guidelines, I will be removing the notability warnings.FoxDuality (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching this ! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)