Talk:Zainab Salbi

Maintenance tagging
In response to an active AfD, this article has seen an uptick in editing on the BLP by an editor involved on the AfD, which beforehand was practically unsourced. Among the sourcing added since has seen WP:CITEKILL on book review links which in this article's context are only showing that the BLP subject did write them, tertiary sources (reference/encyclopedic works), non-independent, unreliable/unknown reliability, and self-published works. Much of these sources have already been spoken upon in the AfD. Especially in consideration that this is a BLP, and in consideration of the AfD-related editing / potential influence on discussion and decisions, it is meaningful to add necessary maintenance tags. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * User:DragonflySixtyseven advised some improvements in the AfD, which is what has been done. Among the sourcing added since has seen WP:CITEKILL on book review links which in this article's context are only showing that the BLP subject did write them- it's useful IMO at least to establish that one clause of WP:NAUTHOR is met. The first clause (significant or well-known) is debatable and depends on intepretations, but demonstrating one part of NAUTHOR is useful not WP:CITEKILL. They're also included in a single citation for each book so I'm confused where CITEKILL is applicable. To a reader, it's not citation clutter, notability bomb, or needless repetition, which are among some of the examples. No opinion on the tertiary sourcing debate between you and .  VickKiang  (talk)  05:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The improvements so far have mostly been sources for a few of the (non-significant) honors, poor sourcing, duplicating over content and sources from Women for Women International which likely shouldn't have been done, or sourcing not demonstrating notability already pointed out as such as on the AfD especially non-independent/primary material. That is, yes some improvement has been made on not having this be an uncited mess, but little in the way of sourcing proving notability per guidelines.
 * It doesn't meet any clause of WP:NAUTHOR in any case. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." is not demonstrated here nor on the AfD. You say it's debatable and depends on interpretations, but stretching it to be synonymous with WP:NBOOK is not right.
 * As others have pointed out on the AfD, it's more useful towards WP:NBOOK "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.". To quote a couple explanations from the AfD, "Coverage of an author's work does not equal notability for the author." and "Reviews of Ms. Salbi's books are excellent for showing notability of the books, but she is not the books and they are not her".
 * Conflating WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK is erroneous, and by that interpretation, almost every book that meets WP:NBOOK satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for the author too.
 * Regarding citekill, this is a form of "notability bomb", especially in the context of having been added to try to provide notability. There's little reason to have any of the links considering it's not in contention or needs "proof" that the books were written by her, for which there's an ISBN link too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you quote an explanation based on one user. Sure, AfD isn't a vote count but there are four users here (excluding me) supporting retention and yourself supporting deletion. You say it's debatable and depends on interpretations, but stretching it to be synonymous with WP:NBOOK is not right- it is a completely reasonable interpretation, you may believe it's not right but that some users believe that those help to establish notability IMHO would mean that these are not uncontroversially WP:CITEKILL. But we're not going to agree anyway, so let's respectfully disagree.  VickKiang  (talk)  06:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep AfD discussions to the AfD. This is a Talk page section for maintenance tagging. Briefly, those who have vouched for keeping have been made arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:VAGUEWAVE, the claim that a book having reviews (with little in the way of explanation) = author is automatically notable, and the claim that interviews of a subject talking about the subject are independent of the subject which is egregiously wrong.
 * It's is completely reasonable in your perspective but rather unique otherwise, but if you think it merits inclusion in policy, please suggest your idea to the Village pump to propose that WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR should directly overlap in the manner proposed. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's surprising that you're stating this given that you started this post and went into three paragraphs regarding how WP:NAUTHOR is failed. Your explanations of WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR in both here and other forums (including various user talk pages) is significantly longer than what I had wrote. But, I'll listen to your advice and refrain from posting more.
 * Moreover, you believe my comment is rather unique otherwise. So basically the perspectives of myself and other keep votes hare in no way policy based? If you state that my belief is egregiously wrong, while, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 75 I see no consensus that this perspective would be so wrong as you suggested. If you continue to state inaccurately that others are WP:VAGUEWAVE, that's up to you, and let's see how this discussion will go. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  07:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will kindly ask you again to keep AfD discussions to the AfD discussion page. You are WP:BLUDGEONING here on a matter not related to this Talk page section. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding your later comment that I am BLUDGEONING- I've commented on all of these forums substantially less than you, but if you believe my conduct is inappropriate, feel free to take it to my user talk page or WP:ANI. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  08:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * SouthernNights What is the reason for engaging in further edit warring and removing maintenance tags? Being "reliable tertiary sources" or not is not what the the template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tertiary is necessarily for. I hope you know too that like primary and non-independent sourcing, tertiary sources do not presume notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.
With regard to:

The tagging and removal does not appear supported by the WP:USESPS essay, because the author is Joanna L. Krotz and the publisher is the United States Department of State. I think this source should be restored to the article, without the tag. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The report was created by the US Department of State with contributors for various sections, and the site attributes both  the author (twice) and publisher of the published work as "Bureau of International Information Programs, United States Department of State". This government report has multiple contributors but written as part of the Bureau of International Information Programs report and the source rightly attributes authorship of the work to the Bureau.
 * The original PDF from the US government does the same on the third page: "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS"
 * There's also questions around the non-independence of the subject (the statements by the subject only appear to be on this report, such that they appear to be made to this report) and source reliability around using government publications about bios/BLPs in general and especially for contentious information. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Beccaynr. And there is some urgency to have thins properly sources while this article is at AFD. CT55555 (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

COI tag
There seems seemed to be good reason to add the COI tag. As I write 12.2% of the article was written by that user. Do editors think 12.2% represents a "major" contributor, or have we reached the point with subsequent edits from others that we can remove the tag. I lean towards taking the tag off, but it's not a slam dunk, so seeking input from others. (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I found myself here by wandering around Wikipedia, but wanted to ask why would % of contributions to an article determine whether there is COI? -Vipz (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the tag is "a major contributor to the article..." so the tag is only appropriate if the contribution is "major". CT55555 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A significant portion of the article has been modified since December 24 so the 12.2% (wherever you're getting this from) is skewed. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 12.2% comes from here. It is not skewed, the article has been improved since the tag was added, so the tag is decreasingly relevant. That's not skewed, that's my point. Tags are a signal for others to improved and edit, which has occured. CT55555 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has improved in terms of citing yes, because it had almost nothing before, but BLP violations, primary/non-independent sources, self-published sources, and tertiary sources do not presume notability. If we only include sources that presume notability, almost everything would be removed except for a few, mainly on the sources trivially used for honors. That these sources are being added for potential WP:GAME considering they were pointed out as problematic in the AfD is an issue with regards to influencing the AfD erroneously. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think people are gaming the system. People are improving the article. This is a good thing. And something that an admin who voted delete asked us to do. Seeing a tag, making improvements that the tag indicates are needed, removing the tag, is a good thing that we should encourage . Please assume good faith. CT55555 (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 I am assuming good faith. If the tone came across poorly, then sorry. That same admin, who only got involved because of the (assuming well intended) poor arguments being made to keep, also pointed out gross misunderstandings in your and others' (including another admin getting it wrong) interpretations of notability criteria, even respectfully pointing out how you got it backwards. I hope you did not ignore DragonflySixtyseven's advice and expertise.
 * I understand this article is of special importance to WikiProject Women in Red, which has a focus on preventing red links (deletions) and making blue links (creations). 3 stated members, including you, have been very active in both the AfD and in response on this article as a result. Also, the notability tag you removed was not necessarily justified. We need to be honest with the objective fact that, regardless of the AfD, very little of the sourcing added is doing anything to presume or provide notability (almost all tertiary, primary/non-independent, self-published including the "staff" profiles just added, or unreliable). As long as we're both accepting that, I can assume your good faith without reservation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your repeated addition of a duplicate tag (notability plus AFD) is unhelpful and seems like edit warring, but I have more important things to worry about. I saw someone disagree with me and I'm pondering that, the closing admin can weigh things up, I don't feel obliged to reply to every comment made, and this is an approach that I hope others consider too. Primary sources for verification of non controversial details like board roles, is normal. I don't think this article is of special important to Women In Red. I've never noticed any article be identified as more or less important than others. I think all that is happening is that there are several editors who take an interest in deletion discussions about biographical articles about women. I should not need to convince you of my good faith edits, that should be your starting assumption. CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (Restoring this comment from before. Wikipedia logged me out (probably sign-in timeout) and it switched to a remote IP address. That was not intentional).
 * Of special importance compared to other editors, not within the WikiProject. The WikiProject is focused on exactly these kinds of articles. It's the stated objective.
 * Primary sourcing (in cases where it is allowable) for verification isn't the issue. It's that they do nothing for presuming notability, which is the main point of the AfD. I never asked you had to convince me. All I said is I'd have no doubt at all as long as we're aligned on a basic objective fact of the article.
 * While the sourcing added may (unintentionally) skew the perspective of more recently involved editors on the AfD, and may even skew the perspective of the final review, because I don't know if anyone else has deep dived every source, the important consideration is that "having sources" doesn't mean automatically notable per WP:NBASIC. If the sources don't fit the threshold, then it doesn't. I'm frankly surprised by how incredibly little sourcing fitting notability criteria there is for the subject. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (IP edit removed, but replying anyway) I made clear in my first comment what sources I felt bolstered notability in my opening comment. This article is getting into WP:SNOW keep territory, so you will hopefully understand if I withdraw from replying, it doesn't seem like you and I are going to reach consensus. Also, just pointing that you appear to have logged out and are now editing from an IP address. Be careful about commenting at AFD like that, it can give the impression that you are two people, assuming you are indeed the same person in this conversation. CT55555 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume bad faith. I did not deliberately sign-out. It was likely the timeout on my sign-in session that corresponded with when I posted and so then the post showed up as the remote IP address my device is on.Yes, your comment was that because 2 reviews exist for a book by the author, the subject is automatically notable. An uninvolved admin entered the AfD to respond to you on how wrong that is. I hope you at least took something from that. Regardless of WP:SNOW, the Keep arguments are either spurious, or making specifically arguments to avoid. 4 of them only came after the mass editing on the article (adding sources that do not presume notability) and those took a surface-level look at the situation judging from the WP:JUSTAPOLICY arguments. It's easy to see a lot of tertiary, unreliable, self-published, and primary/non-independent sources that do nothing to add notability . I'll likely make a Talk section evaluating every source since I'm the only person who has taken that time and effort, digging into ProQuest, Gale, and so on, to check on each source added. There have also been blatant BLP violations and original research/failed verification added and some still on the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no set percentage. It could be much higher, and it may turn out that the content is fine (theoretically), after editors have reviewed it. The COI editor edited last in July 2021. Since then, there were many edits by other editors. They have obviously read the article. It is being worked on, yet there are no concrete outstanding claims about the need for COI-related cleanup on this talk page. Inline citing needs to be better, but this isn't about whether the article is problem-free in general, it's about whether it is anomalous in a way pertaining to conflict of interest specifically. Therefore, I will remove the tag, per instructions at Template:COI. —Alalch E. 12:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see it the same as you. CT55555 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E., @CT55555: I asked that because I'm seeing a fallacy - consider this: what if it were a high-edit-traffic article with thousands of previous edits, where a contributor with clear COI recently made, say, a hundred, which would still make it a very low percentage of total edits to the article? -Vipz (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting problem to imagine. Thankfully, not one we are dealing with here. CT55555 (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555: Ah, excuse me, I thought we were talking about having Connected contributor at the top of the talk page. Shouldn't it be added? To explain further my previous comment: one COI user could add as much content in 10 contributions as another could in 100, therefore percentage is not the greatest indicator whether their contribution to the article is major, although it might be helpful to imagine how much is there to go through. COI is COI, regardless of how much one contributes to an article they might have COI with. -Vipz (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [ec] Your scenario happens. Such a situation would not normally require the tag because a concerned editor could revert to the non-COI affected revision and bring the questionable edits up for discussion on the talk page without the COI tag, because it isn't an ongoing problem (in the then-current revision) anymore. The tag is usually for when there is no reasonable "healthy revision" to revert to, i.e. when the problems are very deeply rooted and not easily resolved by one editor, or perhaps resolvable by one editor, but it could take a while. Typical COI-tagged articles are created by or have been heavily edited from early on by the COI contributor. —Alalch E. 13:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the point you are making. But I think:
 * 12.2% of a fairly short article
 * The edits being before lots of reviews and edits
 * means that the article is OK. But I'm not very sure about these tags (hence starting this). So I lean towards it not being necessary, but feel free to favour the opinions of people who have more experience of this specific area. CT55555 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My initial comment had a typo "seems" instead of "seemed" I meant it made sense at the time it was added, not now. So sorry, that may have thrown you in the wrong direction. CT55555 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion but I also support removing the COI tag. The percentage of edits by that COI account is extremely low at this point. Add in so many editors updating the article with reliably sourced info and the tag can be removed.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:RELTIME and section contents
Hi, I noticed that later-life information was added to the Early life and education section, and I think the later-life information should probably be split and attributed to the date of publication (per MOS:RELTIME). We could create a Personal life section to include information from sources where she discusses her later relationship with Islam. E.g. Harper's Bazaar Arabia states in 2015, Zainab’s conviction that, “God in Islam is all the emotions which I love. God is mercy, God is kindness, God is love,” is at the heart of the message she is communicating to her audience of millions, one story at a time. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly, going on about her relationship with her religion feels a little excessive. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it'll take a lot of convincing. DS (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. In all the time I spent finding sources to improve the article, I didn't notice her religion come up other than reviews of her memoir which often stated she grew up in a secular household. CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Before the article was nominated for deletion, the nominator removed the American Muslims and Iraqi Muslims categories from the article, and has since questioned the reliability of the award-winning Yemen Times at RSN after a YT source identifying her as a Muslim was added to the article . I continue to think that at minimum, the Early life and education section should focus on her early life and education, which is separate from whether and how much content should be included in a Personal life section about her later life, relationship with religion, etc. Beccaynr (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did argue at the RSN that Yemen Times should be considered reliable for things like this. I realise that my answer above agreed with DS's point, but didn't answer your question. So my answer to your question is yes, we should separate early life from later life.
 * While I don't support lot of content about her religion (but could be persuaded if sources support this) I would support adding categories that were removed and mentioning her religion, if the source was the Yemen Times. CT55555 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I updated the article to help keep the section focused, and I figure a Personal life section could be developed with information from sources that appears WP:DUE to include. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I may later add in something about her family being secular, as that was what I saw a lot in the reviews of Between Two Worlds: Escape From Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow Of Saddam CT55555 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources
These sources may help develop article content: Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Zainab Salbi: Why I cried for Uncle Saddam (Independent, 2012)
 * Zainab Salbi: Escape from tyranny (Guardian, 2013)


 * These interviews (primary, non-independent sources) can help with article content, but like almost all of the other sources on the article, do nothing to help presume notability. The Independent one is already being used on the article.
 * Another issue I just noticed is many of the sources are currently violationg WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.".
 * Those "staff" profiles on self-published websites like not only don't add notability, but are WP:BLPSPS violations. While the policy is very clear-cut, including for these types of sources, I also double-checked with the -help IRC.


 * More blunt, given the overciting on this article with sources do not provide notability, "additional sources" should be secondary, reliable, independent of the subject. Adding more interviews, written statements by the subject, BLP violating sources do nothing for notability and further skew the BLP in a negative direction. In its current state, the article is for the most part "Zainab Salbi according to Zainab Salbi". We need to do better than that, and if we can't because the sourcing doesn't exist, then there's not much to say in terms of the subject's notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Interview is an essay and not a guideline nor a policy. Thanks a lot @Beccaynr, the interviews will sure be of help in raising the notability. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Paradise Chronicle It is an essay that provides more explanation on using interviews as sourcing. However, it is not controversial on Wikipedia that interviews in which a subject is talking about themselves are non-independent and primary. Do you have anything to back up your novel claim that they aren't? Also, I have to ask, but why are you still following me around on various places where I edit? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * From my view, I think it would be helpful if this section focuses on the sources listed at the beginning and whether and how to integrate information into the article - other Talk sections could be opened for issues related to other sources. As a starting point, WP:BASIC says Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, and with the recent AfD closed as a snow keep, I think it would be helpful to move on from how these sources may or may not support notability. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Her mother worked"
fyi, a source was removed from the article (edit summary: "Failed verification. This source on ebscohost is a 3-question interview and doesn't mention her mother's job and doesn't mention her father.") but the content was based on the part of the source before the interview for the part of the sentence "her mother worked". This is not the only source I've found that mentions this, but it was the one I had quickly available when making the edit. This source was used with another source that describes the occupations of her mother and father. I have no objection to moving the reference to make the text-source integrity more clear, but I think it could be restored to help support the content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The sentence in the Wiki article is "Her mother worked as a teacher and her father was a commercial pilot." One of the sources only said "her working mother" and nothing on her father. It did not describe the occupation of her mother, and didn't mention her father. Since we already have a source supporting the statement of her parents' occupations, why do we need to include an extra source saying nothing more than her mother worked? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From my view, it is helpful to include because the other source only describes her as a teacher, and the fact that she worked appears to be emphasized by the source as pertinent to Salbi's biography. Beccaynr (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're getting at but the wording is confusing. Yes, it says she was a teacher. Teacher isn't a profession or isn't working? Or is the aim to make it crystal clear that as a teacher, this was a working job and not an ambiguous label? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that I found a source with a better level of detail, and I would prefer to use it if I can find it again. The source that was removed seems to highlight her mother working as an important part of Salbi's biography, so that aspect appears helpful, both to potentially include and as a reason to continue looking for more information about in other sources. The other source in the article seems more straightforward because it does not appear to offer the same kind of context. Beccaynr (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead
Hi I think this edit is unjustified and frankly uncollaborative. You said above you didn't have time to participate in the GA process, you would take this page off your watchlsit and you wouldn't have time for it. That's all fine but then the day after the GA review you drastically reduce the lead. If you read the review, I was asking for the lead to be expanded per MOS:LEAD. I don't understand either your motivation or your justification for making these changes. I would not have passed the article as a GA with the lead like that. Your motivation doesn't matter to me but I would like to discuss the justification. I'm sure would too after all the hard work they put in bringing this to GA standard.

re Daily Beast, I have much less concerns about that removal, although I do note WP:DAILYBEAST says "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" and I'm not sure what was controversial. What does worry me is that by simply removing it, have you left any text/source integrity issues behind? Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you not understand the motivation? a clear rationale was given in the edit summary. —Alalch E. 10:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's also unhelpful "MOS:LEAD edits/undue per article, and WP:WAW/WP:NOTBYRELATION, rm repeated content; rm WP:DAILYBEAST" is not clear at all and in fact combines completely different things into one edit. Did you read what I said? I asked in the GA review above for the lead to be expanded per MOS:LEAD Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think its unhelpful. WP:WAW is a link to an essay: Writing about women. WP:NOTBYRELATION is a link to a section of the same essay. In the relevant part, the essay says not to frame the narrative in a sexist way such as by defining women by their relationships. According to Beccaynr, the lead had, and now has, the wrong approach to writing about this women because it significantly defines her through her relationships: to her father, to Saddam, to her first husband, and to Atallah, her second husband. It's clear what removing the Daily Beast reference is about; yes that's a wholly separate change with an independent rationale (many editors remove references to this source whenever possible). The "rm repeated content" is about copyediting the lead content that remains after removing the information that Beccaynr considered to be undue (two mentions of how she co-founded Women for Women International). This is just my explaining what the edit summary means.—Alalch E. 11:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead, as well as the article, can (should) be expanded by saying what her other books are about.—Alalch E. 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Verification that mother was Shia was lost with the removal of the Daily Beast reference.—Alalch E. 12:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was alerted to the completion of the GA process by a ping from CT55555 in a comment suggesting that I receive credit for it, so I looked at the article, but I realize my comments during the GA process and my recent comment on your Talk page  might make my post-GA edit appear uncollaborative, and I am sorry for creating that impression when my intent was to improve the article.
 * From my view, the lead appeared to disproportionately focus on personal aspects of her biography compared to what she is notable for, according to the proportion of content and references in the article that focus on her accomplishments, and in a way described in the WP:NOTBYRELATION section of the WP:WAW essay - Alalch E. has described the issue above. And it would have been better for me to split the removal of The Daily Beast into a separate edit, but I do generally try to remove this source, especially for statements about living people.
 * As to TSI issues, on closer review, this appears to be the source for the 1996 US citizenship date, for which I do not think it should be relied upon, and I apologize for not noticing this when I removed the source but not the content it appears to support. And I think generally, per MOS:LEAD, it might work to incorporate some content from the Awards section. Overall, I would like to reiterate the apology that I tried to express during the GA process about my lack of familiarity with the process. It appears I still have more to learn, and I appreciate you following up on my edit. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly watching and listening because:
 * I respect the philosophy of WP:WAW/WP:NOTBYRELATION and want to learn from this. Until now, I didn't think of them much.
 * I see some tension because I also note that reliable sources frame her by her relations. I don't know if that means they are perpetuating a wrong that we should end, or if we should follow them.
 * I wish @Beccaynr's contributions were timed earlier. But I also see the good faith and maybe some confusion, maybe @Beccaynr thinks they could not edit during a GA process or pre-GA review?
 * My approach to GA review process is to assume the reviewer knows best and defer to their requests, so am now a but unsure what to do, I don't have strong views on anything here, am more in learning/listening mode and hope we can reach consensus. If someone could say what TSI is an acronym for, that would help me. CT55555 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * TSI is 'text-source integrity,' as in, I should have been much more careful when removing The Daily Beast to be sure I was not leaving unsourced content in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)