Template:Did you know nominations/Mette Ivie Harrison


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Mette Ivie Harrison

 * ... that Mette Ivie Harrison wrote a mystery based on the intimate structure of Mormon culture...? Source: The Bishop's Wife
 * ALT1: ... that Mette Ivie Harrison writes for the Huffington Post on topics of Mormonism...? Source: Mormon in progress

5x expanded by Gandhi (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Starting review.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Preliminary remarks: User:Gandhi (BYU): Could you please add more references to the first paragraph? Also, are you able to find a date of birth please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have standardized the layout. Please add more in-line references and then ping me here. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, I have added in-line citations. Unfortunately, I do not have access to her date of birth. Thanks!Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, well-written, long enough.
 * The sources are not all third party. "Harrison, Mette Ivie (2018d). "You Are Whole". Sunstone." is cited four times and it is self-published. This is problematic.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, according to Wikipedia self-published doesn't necessarily mean primary sources. When a self-published article talks about events from the past it is considered a secondary source. Here Identifying and using self-published works is what Wikipedia accepts.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think WP:ABOUTSELF is germane here. The question here would be whether there is any reason to doubt her statements about herself in the sourcing, and whether there's enough non-self sources to establish notability. I don't see how Harrison writing about herself, whether present or past, can be anything but primary sourcing; if she were talking about other things, then she'd be a secondary source, but not about herself. This is not to say its isn't allowable material (non-controversial and non-self-serving facts about her life are certainly allowed), but primary nonetheless. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the sources about Harrison's life are interviews with her or articles she wrote. Zigzig20s mentioned the article Harrison wrote in Sunstone. It was not self-published, but it was authored by Harrison. The "My Life" source is self-published. As BlueMoonset mentioned, according to WP:ABOUTSELF it's okay to cite self-published sources for material that isn't controversial. Which part did you find problematic, Zigzig20? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It is hard to argue she is notable if so much of the content is self-published. I think it would be different if she had said those things about herself in an interview published by someone else. I don't think this can go on the main page, sorry. I withdraw my review. Please find another reviewer.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph), but for either ALT to run, the reference must immediately follow the statement. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ unnecessary and image properly licensed.-- Laun chba ller 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Launchballer, I added the huffington reference directly after the sentence about Harrison writing pages for the huffington post. Thanks! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 good to go.-- Laun chba ller 17:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed your partial review above. For the purposes of Template:Did you know nominations/Phipps Bridge, can this count as a QPQ?-- Laun chba ller 17:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, and I agree with that there's too much primary sourcing here to meet GNG. However, since you have reviews of the book, perhaps you'll consider moving this page to The Bishop's Wife? Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bishop's Wife page is for the film of that name; it is unrelated to Harrison's novel. I believe the Harrison page meets notability criteria. One of the criteria for creative professionals is "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." For authors, "significant critical attention" usually means winning awards. One of her books has won the Utah Letters about Literature award, and four of her books have been finalists for the Association of Mormon Letters awards. She has been interviewed on NPR and Publishers Weekly, and one of her books was reviewed in the New York Times--something few other notable Mormon authors have achieved. Gandhi (BYU) is working on adding more reviews and replacing some of the self-published-sourced material. However, self-published biographical sources are common for living authors. Pages like Brandon Sanderson and Anthony Doerr reference the author's "about" page. Please define what "too much primary sourcing" means and we can address the issue. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look at the article, did some editing, and removed the whole "Critical reception" section, which would be appropriate if this were an article about a book, not a bio. I agree with you that her awards make her notable. Self-published biographical sources are generally used for dates and places that may not be covered in general, independent sources, no more than that. I've removed the tags and am just asking for a date or date range to be added to the lead. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the year she published her first adult mystery.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. Let's go with ALT0, which is verified and cited inline. I re-piped the link to "Mormon", which is more widely known than "LDS". Restoring tick per Launchballer's review. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Hello, I came to promote this, and for me ALT0 is pretty good. With that said, I note that in the article, it mentions that she has been diagnosed with high-functioning autism and has written about it. would you like to suggest a hook based on that? Speaking as someone who has had the same diagnosis, that aspect of her life sounds as interesting as her writing a mystery novel about Mormons. Courtesy ping to  and . Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP, but if it's well-cited and she has been reported speaking about it, I think that would make a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry if I got a little worked up about the page passing GNG! How about one of these? I'm dancing around "autistic author" because I don't want to have it be her defining characteristic, but "suffers from autism" doesn't sound right either. The source for both of these is the Sunstone article, which is unfortunately behind a paywall because it was so recently published.
 * ALT 2: ...that due to her autism, Mormon author Mette Ivie Harrison finds it difficult to cry at church, leading others to underestimate her emotions?
 * ALT 3: ...that according to Mormon author Mette Ivie Harrison, crying in church is an important "ritual of emotional vulnerability" which she is acutely aware of due to her diagnosis of autism?

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , these alt hooks sound like they were written about anyone with autism. I thought you were going to suggest something about how her autism plays a role in her writing; this would also tie in with her being an author. Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, hmmm... what about
 * ALT 4: ...that Mette Ivie Harrison attributes part of her success in writing to her autistic analysis of human behavior? Also the Sunstone article: "Writing was a perfect career for someone with high-functioning autism who was good with language. I'd studied German for many years, but had also learned Spanish, French, Greek, and Latin. I loved language. I loved seeing the rules for putting grammar together. I easily memorized vocabulary. But most of all, I liked seeing how culture was revealed through language. I was good at explaining a lot of things about humans and how they interacted. It's one of the reasons that I never suspected I had autism. I was very good at figuring people out—not intuitively, but through analysis." Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. Though I've never heard of "autistic analysis"; I would write instead:
 * ALT4a: ... that Mormon novelist Mette Ivie Harrison attributes part of her success in writing to her autism, which enables her to closely analyze human behavior?
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Offline hook ref quoted here and cited inline. ALT4a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)