Talk:Wednesday Martin/Archive 1

SPA IP addresses adding promotional copy
I believe there is a conflict of interest here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Additions
Per convo on User Talk Page:

Hi! I see you're editing Wednesday Martin. Please let's talk on the article talk page before you do any more edits -- these are all promotional copy, which isn't allowed in a Wikipedia article. valereee (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Valereee: The language was quoted from the NYT, etc., Why should all the negatives (which might be considered "weasel words" under Wiki guidelines) not be countered with other citations from reviewers? Everything on the page without our edits seems promotional, just in a negative way. 100.33.12.19 (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, 100.33! Well, let's talk before we edit again.  No one on Wikipedia has any interest in writing an article to be negative.  The goal is to write it in an objective way.  What do you see as weasel words in the current article? valereee (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you give us notes on why our additions were deleted? All of our additions were cited with sources, sometimes multiple sources. Were there certain words or phrases that were problematic? 100.33.12.19 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were multiple issues. For instance, "instant #1 best seller."  That kind of promotional copy needs to be directly quoted from a reliable source, and even when sourced doesn't belong in the lede. valereee (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)  The list of books can be put into the lede (with sourcing in the subsections) but details of reception of a single book, most editors would probably agree, isn't important enough to go into the lede.


 * Can you tell me who 'we' is? Because from the editing pattern, I'm concerned that there's a conflict of interest.  Are you an acquaintance of the article's subject?  valereee (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A change will be made to say "New York Times bestseller" instead of "instant #1 best seller." Why does the article include only negative information and a Criticism section, and why were the citations on positive reviews deleted? Factual information added has been twice deleted; the correct doctorate degree she received from Yale and the title of the third book she has written, for example. This is about ensuring that there's a factual and accurate representation of the author. 100.33.12.19 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, 100.33! Well, again, that probably shouldn't go into the lede.  Hm, on Criticism...perhaps we can change the section name to be 'Reception.' ? You didn't answer my question about conflict of interest -- are you acquainted with the article's subject in any way?  That is, a friend or family member, hired by her or her publisher or her publicist or her editor, any relationship at all? valereee (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed section name to 'Reception' to be more neutral valereee (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
So, 100.33, here's why I ask: It's not forbidden that someone who knows the person try to make sure the article is neutrally presented. But the best way to accomplish the neutral presentation is to post your concerns here on the talk page and let another (uninvolved) editor make the changes. I am happy to work with you on this. If you'll tell me the thing you think are unfairly presented, I'll work with you. You can even write a section with sourcing and post it here, and I'll edit to make it neutral and post it where I think it belongs. The reason this is a better idea is that, if you have any WP:COI at all, it can make it very difficult to be objective. valereee (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disclosing COI and intentions for working on this article
Hi there. I'm working on behalf of Wednesday Martin to help address some of the issues with this article. I see that there have been some questions about editors with a conflict of interest possibly being active on the page. I'd like to establish that 100.33.12.19 was not me, and also that there will be no other edits or messages from anyone else connected to the subject other than me. My approach to working with others on Wikipedia mirrors what outlined in her last message. I'll never edit the article directly and only propose changes and my reasoning here on the Talk page for others to look over.

There are quite a few problems with this article, but the ones I'm most interested in fixing are neutrality and accuracy—making sure the article reads neither promotionally nor is entirely a criticism of Martin, as suggested in the WP:BLP guidelines. I think the tone can be fixed, in part, by developing some more content based on reliable sources.

Another concern with this entry is that Martin is experiencing a spike in news coverage due to her most recent book. Quite a few sources used in this article were published within the last few months and there is ongoing new coverage about Primates of Park Avenue—both positive and negative, and perhaps changing (for example, see this article which issued a correction after publishing). In the view of WP:RECENT, I think it's important for the information included to stick closely to basic facts and that any criticism or praise not be given "disproportionate space" as outlined here. The Reception section is longer than any of the others, albeit only by a few lines. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to create an article for Primates of Park Avenue where the more detailed information about what the book is about and its reception can be housed.

These, of course, are just my initial thoughts. I'd like to hear from others who have been actively editing this article, including and, and also anyone else who might come across this message. I will be posting a note to WikiProject Women writers soon to get input from editors there, too. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Heatherer, thanks for disclosing your COI and for being willing to work with other editors on any concerns Dr. Martin may have. Why don't we, perhaps one section at a time, start by having you post the section as you would like to see it, here on the talk page.  I and other editors can make comments, and then when we've reached some level of consensu, I or some other editor who has no COI can post the revised section? I am very busy with other things right now, so I may only be in here once a day or so, but I'll try to keep up.  valereee (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds great. I'm working my way through the article looking at the information included and sourcing, as well as reviewing other coverage. It's taking me a little time, as I want to be thorough, but I wanted to be sure to introduce myself after seeing your posts above. Once I have some solid suggestions together, I can ping you to see if you have time to review. If not, I'm happy to look for another volunteer editor to help too. Thank you! Heatherer (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Heatherer, just ping me -- I'm around! valereee (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for treatment of name in the lede
Hello! As promised, I have returned after completing research. Because this article has a few tricky parts to work through, I want to address one prominent detail first. In the introduction of the article, "Wednesday" is implied to be the author's pen name:
 * "Wendy Martin, who writes under the name Wednesday Martin, is an American author, blogger, and commenter on parenting, step-parenting, and popular culture."

Having looked into this, I can't find sources that explicitly state "Wednesday" is a pseudonym. As far as I can see in sourcing and from what she has said, Wednesday is the name she goes by in all areas of her life. So it doesn't seem accurate to say that it's just the name she writes under. The references listed in the article say only the following: references removed by Valereee to keep them from continuing to appear at the bottom of the page

As such, I think it makes sense to reword the first sentence to, Wendy "Wednesday" Martin, is an American author, blogger, and commenter on parenting, step-parenting, and popular culture. This is standard for many Wikipedia articles for individuals known by a nickname or different name than their birth name (see the articles for Larry David, Stevie Nicks, and Tipper Gore as just a few examples). Interested to hear what and any other editors watching think. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's a reasonable and neutral change. Done.  valereee (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The change looks good. I'm putting together some notes on the Works and Reception sections currently, which I'll post soon. Looking forward to getting your input. Heatherer (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be out of town next week with limited internet access (we're camping) so may not be in here from Saturday 1st until Sunday 9th. valereee (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I just started a new discussion, if you have time to look before your trip. Enjoy your time away! Heatherer (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposing new Writing career draft
Hi there. In the hope that we can start a discussion before goes on vacation, I'm posting a proposed draft for a new Writing career section that combines both the Works and Reception sections into one. Since there is limited information, I thought it made sense to address both Martin's work and the reaction to it at the same time in one chronological narrative. The draft is on my user space here:


 * User:Heatherer/Wednesday_Martin_Writing_career

My main goals were to accurately and thoroughly describe Martin's writing career and, with respect to Primates of Park Avenue, hit on all the major points that have been repeated in sources to provide readers with an easily understandable and comprehensive overview of the events.

I've done several things in my attempt to accomplish this:


 * I added more background and description about each of Martin's books and included the other publications Martin has written for
 * I tried to provide a timeline and summary of the entire controversy surrounding Primates of Park Avenue
 * I pared down sourcing to eliminate the long chains of citations. I picked what I felt were the most solid articles from reputable sources

I should note that I did not remove any of the criticism or critical sourcing currently in the article. I did rewrite some of it though (for instance, the specific quotes didn't seem to add much information). I think the result is a very neutral recap of the book's reception, but I can rewrite as needed.

This, of course, is probably the most "touchy" area of the article, so I'm prepared to work with editors to get it right. I do think that the inclusion of more content is an improvement over the current article and hope that a new version can be taken live soon. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to just post reactions as I read through.


 * "bestseller" needs a citation, and it needs to be very specific as to which list/sublist, how high and for how many weeks.
 * "widely discussed on social media" is way too squishy.
 * "bestseller" again, and with this second mention we are veering WAY over into promotional copy. As an uninvolved editor this would absolutely make my antenna go up.  I'd just get rid of both 'bestseller" mentions; they're unnecessary and they're going to attract all sorts of bad attention attention you probably don't want.
 * "continued to earn press" ditto.


 * In general: that first paragraph is probably too long. WP:UNDUE


 * "were called into question" is nonspecific plus passive. :)  We have to mention who called them into question and provide citations, especially since there were multiple unrelated criticisms.


 * As a general statement, sections help readers find what they're looking for. Work (or whatever) and Reception are VERY common sections for writers, chefs, artists, performers, any creative.  "Reception" is seen as a neutral term, as opposed to 'criticism' or 'praise'.  Avoiding sections can be seen as counterproductive to presenting the material effectively, and removing them can be seen as trying to obscure facts.  I would recommend you keep the two sections as they'll likely be put back by some future editor anyway, and the resulting cut-paste job probably won't make anyone happy.  valereee (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . Hope you had a nice vacation. While you were away, I revisited my draft and tried to address your concerns. I divided the section back into two, which led to some general revisions and rewrites, but I also made your specific edits:


 * Removed "widely discussed on social media" and "continued to earn press"
 * Removed the word "bestseller" to describe Stepmonster and expounded on the term for Primates by detailing the lists it appeared on
 * To explain my thought process here, I don't think the label "bestseller" is inherently promotional. It simply describes the book's success. It's also pretty typical: the Harry Potter entry notes the series is the "best-selling series in history", and the Jaws article states that it was "the highest grossing film of all time until Star Wars"
 * Attributed and cited all criticisms (and positive reception, too)


 * The updated draft is back on my userspace here: User:Heatherer/Wednesday_Martin_Writing_career


 * Let me know if you'll have a chance to give it another look! Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty good...I'd suggest replacing 'was praised as' with 'was called', and unless the Chronicle, FT, and Economist reviews are actual raves, I'd suggest calling them 'generally positive'. The only reasons for these changes are because the writing is being done by a representative of Dr. Martin -- we want to avoid any possible perceptions of non-neutral tone, so even though in most cases such wordings wouldn't raise a flag, in this case they could.  I'm cool with the detailed descriptions of the lists -- it's possible it could cause concerns to someone, but I don't think it's a problem.  FWIW, your best argument is never going to be 'it's done in other articles' because that will immediately get you a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS response.  Plus ugly comparisons with Harry Potter ala 'I knew Jack Kennedy.  Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.'  By which time other editors will have shown up to find out what the fuss is about.  It's always better to reason why in THIS case it makes sense/follows policy. :)  In this case, I think it makes sense because those are neutral reports of things that did happen, and the fact they happened and were reported in various places is both relevant to the subject and important enough to be included.  valereee (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I made your changes, subbing "praised" and adding in "generally positive". Do you have any other suggestions for my draft? What do you think about moving forward and taking it live? Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we can take it live...I'm a little shaky on what I'm supposed to do in this case. I think I remember something about not moving by cutting-and-pasting or something...are you familiar with the best-practices for me to take the sections from your draft space and move it into the article?  I am leaving town for a couple of days early tomorrow, packing my son back up for college.  I'm taking my computer but don't know what my access will be like, and we have a lot to accomplish tomorrow to get him moved in, so I might also have sketchy time until Saturday.  If you can give me instructions on how I should make the move if it's more involved than cut-and-paste, I'd appreciate it!  valereee (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ! So, I think for section drafts like this, it's OK to copy and paste. Just mention in the edit summary that the text was written by me and added after discussion on the Talk page. is an example.


 * From what I've seen, copying and pasting should be avoided if you're replacing an entire article. In that case, editors tend to like to do a histmerge to capture the edit history from user space. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Broke a link in the references -- not sure what I did. valereee (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it looks like you must have not used a reference that was used in an earlier version and named when it was first used, or when you did use it, you used it by a different name. I removed the insertion, but we probably need to add it back in as it's a BLP and this is about her personal life.  valereee (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks great! Thanks, . Sorry about the messed up reference—I redid the citation for that source. The new name is if you want to add it back in. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

news release tag
Can you tell me a little more about what reads like a news release to you? We've just spent considerable time trying to make sure the page doesn't read like one. What are your comments? valereee (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

bio & personal life
There are numerous tags on the bio section that would be great to fill in. It would also be nice to get a photo if we could get one uploaded to wikimedia commons. Perhaps you could help with that? I'm sure Dr. Martin would prefer a photo of her choosing rather than something someone catches on their iphone while she's at Babbo one day for lunch. :D valereee (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up! I'll reach out to see if there's a photo that can be used. As far as the Biography section, I noticed that the sources used are mostly author bios—I've gone through all available articles about Martin, and there isn't a great deal of coverage about her early life, but certainly enough to support the main facts of this section. I've rewritten using secondary sources as references. See below:


 * I wasn't able to add in any additional dates and I actually removed her Yale graduation year due to a lack of sourcing. Since it's a small, non-controversial detail, we could potentially use her author bio to support it, if you think that's appropriate. As far as the other dates, how do you feel about removing the "when" tags? While timing would be good to include, the information is simply not out there.
 * I don't personally have a problem with removing the 'when' tags, but some other editor may just add them back in. I have zero problem with using her author bio to support noncontroversial personal detail. valereee (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The other major thing I did was rename the section to Background, since the information only focuses on her early life and career outside of writing, rather than providing a full bio. Let me know what you think! Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Background' is fine by me -- completely neutral. valereee (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Good news about the photo: I was able to upload an image and the copyright release has been confirmed. The file is here if you'd like to add it to the infobox. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! valereee (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thanks, ! Heatherer (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Introduction and infobox
Hi there! After all the changes we've made to the article, I decided to revisit the introduction and infobox. Here's my stab at a new introduction:

I added in Martin's books (as that is what she's best known for) and updated the list of publications she's written for to match what's in the article (all the publications I found sources for). I also removed the list of places she's appeared to promote her books—I recognize how that could come across as promotional. I'm hoping this round of edits will fix any remaining language that reads "like a news release" so that tag can be removed. Based on 's last message, it doesn't look like is going to assist with the tag, so I hope we can find consensus here to remove it without their input.

I also filled out a new infobox, which can be found on my userspace here:


 * User:Heatherer/Wednesday_Martin_Infobox

Any opinions on replacing the person infobox template with a writer template? I think it looks a bit nicer and allows for some additional information about her work, which is most likely the information readers want quickly. I'm still working on a photo, but will post an update when I have one.

As always, I welcome feedback. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't know what we've done to make the sections not jive, but something. I've removed the double == for now in the last two sections.  I'm fairly crazed right now in real life, will have to get to this another day!  valereee (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The formatting issue was my fault, sorry. The header from the Background draft I proposed a couple messages up threw everything off. I replaced it with a fake header and that seems to have fixed things. I totally understand that you need a little more time to look at this message. Would you like me to see if another editor can help this round? You've been very helpful and have improved the article a great deal, so I want to be sure I'm respectful of all the work and time you've put into this so far. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * absolutely, feel free to! It would definitely be good to get at least one other editor involved in the article!  valereee (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposed lead and infobox look fine to me. You may wish to use the template in the second sentence, as this adds a hidden tag allowing us to easily find statements which might have become out-dated. Pburka (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, ! I updated the second sentence with your suggestion (and I'll keep it in mind for my future drafts, too!). Would you be able to replace the introduction and infobox in the live article with the new versions? I prefer not to make any edits to the article because of my COI. Thanks again! Heatherer (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I don't think the 'news release' warning is necessary in the article's current state. Does anyone object to its removal? Pburka (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! For what it's worth, I agree that the article is much improved and the news release flag is no longer warranted. The editor who originally flagged it hasn't been back, so unless other editors disagree, could you remove it? Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it. Even though it's in the article as well, I don't see why three cites after her name are necessary. Also, I'm not sure how this got rated as B-Class, as it's definitely not. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you consider re-assessing for class? I kind of hate to since I'm a major contributor.  valereee (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reassessed as C-Class. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixing cite errors
I noticed cite errors with two of the references in the article. I've seen this happening in other articles as well, and it seems to be a result of slight differences in references with the same "ref name" (for instance, different access dates). It's easily fixed, but since I have a financial conflict of interest, I don't want to edit the article myself. Would someone be able to make these changes?


 * Change the first reference after "Martin has taught literature and cultural studies at Yale, The New School, and Baruch College." in the Background section to
 * Change the second reference after "Simon & Schuster released the book in June 2015." in the Works section to

I think that should cover everything. Let me know if there are any questions or this is unclear. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Altamel (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting a new photo
Hi there. I wanted to point editors to a new photo of Wednesday Martin. Would someone be able to update the infobox with this photo? As you may remember, I am working on behalf of Ms. Martin via my position with Beutler Ink. Because of my financial COI, I prefer not to make any changes to the article myself. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Pburka (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Heatherer (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wednesday Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150709111242/http://gothamist.com/2015/06/07/shocker_upper_east_side_wife_bonus.php to http://gothamist.com/2015/06/07/shocker_upper_east_side_wife_bonus.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150609220944/http://gothamist.com/2015/06/07/shocker_upper_east_side_wife_bonus.php to http://gothamist.com/2015/06/07/shocker_upper_east_side_wife_bonus.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed additions for Works
Hi there, on behalf of Wednesday Martin, I have some proposed updates for this article to note her work since Primates and some more recent developments relating to that book's film/TV rights. To make things easier for editors to review, I'll list out my proposed edits below and also include a full proposed draft of an updated Works section and the markup for it.

At the start of the Works section, there's currently a paragraph listing Martin's books. I'd like to suggest replacing this with a bulleted bibliography in the typical style used in Works sections. This will allow for the inclusion of full details for each book. I'm hoping it will also be more acceptable as a format to include works that have been published but not covered by secondary sourcing yet.

In short, I'd like to replace the following:
 * Martin is the author of Marlene Dietrich, Stepmonster: A New Look at Why Real Stepmothers Think, Feel and Act the Way We Do, and Primates of Park Avenue.

With this updated list:
 * Martin is the author of the following books and ebooks:

✅

The details in Works regarding Primates of Park Avenue currently ends with noting that the film rights were acquired by Lionsgate. Subsequently, Martin re-aquired the rights (although I've been unable to find a source to confirm this, so have not included this detail for now) and it was recently announced that a TV show is in development. As well, the book has now been translated into 9 languages. I'd like to suggest an addition to the end of the current paragraph discussing Primates, as follows:


 * In May 2018, Lionsgate and Martin agreed to collaborate on a television show developed and co-written by Martin based upon the book. Primates has been translated into nine languages, as of 2018.

✅

This year, Martin's new book, Untrue is due to be released in September. There has already been a little coverage in secondary sourcing, so I've drafted up a short suggested addition to go below the discussion of Primates that summarizes the content of the book and notes its release date:


 * In her book Untrue, Martin focused on female sexuality and addressing untruths about women and sex. The book was slated to be released in September 2018.

✅

Finally, since Martin has continued to contribute to various publications and likely will do over time, I'd like to suggest a small tweak to the existing wording re: her contributions. Specifically, adding "publications including" to the wording at the start of the list of outlets. Ie:


 * In addition to her books, Martin has written for publications including Psychology Today, …

✅

I hope these updates seem reasonable to editors, I'm happy to discuss any part of this. Since I do have a financial conflict of interest, I will not directly edit this article and hope that volunteer editors are willing to review my proposals and make the changes if they look ok. Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback! You previously assisted my former colleague, Heatherer, in reviewing updates for this article and I wonder if you'd be interested to look at these ones? Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to ZappaOMati for reviewing this request and making the changes. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 15:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of tabloid sources
Hi again! Following up here with a short next request for updating this article. In the current article, there are a few tabloid sources in use and I'd like to ask about their appropriateness. Specifically:
 * In the introduction there are three citations used to support Wednesday Martin's name (that her birth name is Wendy, but that she goes by Wednesday). I'd like to ask if the existing sources could be replaced by another source that's already in use in the article, the  reference. Here's why:
 * The Washington Post (the Heller15 citation) is the highest quality source in the article that confirms her name and does so in a simple, factual way
 * One of the existing sources is to a tabloid "hit piece" essentially (the New York Post piece), and seems unnecessary to confirm her name, given the availability of other better sourcing
 * The other two sources are fine, though I feel editors may prefer The Washington Post over New York Magazine and the Hartford Courant


 * In the Reception section, the first sentence is supported by the Daily Mail, which is now blacklisted on Wikipedia. Due to this, I believe this sentence should be removed from the article. Here's the sentence in question: "Martin's book Stepmonster: A New Look at Why Real Stepmothers Think, Feel and Act the Way We Do became, according to the Daily Mail, a resource frequently used by "step mothers, step children and therapists."

Thanks again for reviewing my last request, would you be willing to take a look at this one too?

Once again, I do have a financial conflict of interest, since I'm making this request on behalf of Wednesday Martin as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I won't make edits to the article myself and hope that uninvolved editors will review and make changes as appropriate. Thanks in advance for any feedback and assistance with these suggestions. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC) ✅
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I figured I keep the New York Magazine and Hartford Courant ones intact anyway just in case, but I removed the Daily Mail one. Zappa⚡Mati 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ZappaOMati appreciate your review of this and updating the article. I have just a couple more suggestions, so I'll be back soon here with my next one. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 19:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Addition and fixes for Reception
Hi again! My next request for this article is for the Reception section, where I have one requested addition, a couple of corrections, and a small tweak to suggest for the existing text.

Towards the end of the first paragraph of the Reception section, there is a sentence that seeks to summarize the commentary on Wednesday's NYT essay. The sentence ends noting that the commentary was "arguing against Martin’s account of wife bonuses", however one of the cited pieces (the Phillips piece from the New York Post) actually supports Martin's account. Due to this, I'd like to suggest a small tweak to the wording, to add the following wording shown in green and move the existing citations or add citations (whichever editors feel most appropriate):


 * Following the essay, commentary appeared in the New York Post and Page Six, arguing both for and against Martin’s account of wife bonuses.

The same issue appears again, towards the end of the section, where there's sentence summing up the Karen Heller's Washington Post article about the reception to Primates of Park Avenue. While the Post article discusses all types of coverage, the summary sentence only says it recapped the negative coverage. Again, I'd like to suggest a small tweak, adding the following shown in green:


 * Karen Heller of The Washington Post recapped the coverage, both positive and negative in July 2015

✅

The essay mentioned above went on to become one of the NYT's most read articles in 2015. I'm wondering if we can add mention of that to the article? Sourcing-wise, it was included in the NYT's own list and also mentioned in this Contexts article. Here's my suggested addition for review, which I'd propose adding to the end of the existing first paragraph under Reception:


 * Martin's Sunday Review article from May 16, 2015, Poor Little Rich Women, was one of the top 20 most-read articles in the New York Times that year.

✅

Finally, one small suggestion for the start of the final paragraph of Reception. The sentence describes the content of the New York Post's article as "outlining discrepancies", however this presents as fact that the issues raised by the NYP are discrepancies. I'd like to suggest adding "alleged" here, per the wording below. Does that seem reasonable?


 * An article published by the New York Post outlined alleged discrepancies between Martin's published account and public records.

✅ Once again, I'm making these suggestions on behalf of Wednesday Martin, as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I won't make any edits to the live article myself, so I'm hoping for an uninvolved editor to review and make changes as appropriate. If you'd be interested to look at this request, too, that would be wonderful. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Went ahead with the requested changes. Zappa⚡Mati 04:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and updating the article, ZappaOMati. I have just a few more small edits and also a new image to offer for the article, will be back with those soon. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 12:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)