User talk:Ekhewitt

Regarding your article Elisabeth Bennett
Hi and welcome! I notice you've greatly expanded the article Elisabeth Bennett. There appears to be far too much "insider knowledge", and/or overly-detailed descriptions of primary sources, and the references seem to only mention Bennett in passing (if at all). Please review Wikikpedia's core content policies--No original research, Verifiability and Neutral point of view--as well as Biographies of living persons. Per WP:SECONDARY, articles should primarily be based on secondary sources that summarize what a subject is known for, rather than primary sources (or unattributed personal knowledge) that run the risk of sounding overly promotional. Specifically, you discuss Bennett's career without and include embedded links to sources that do not directly verify any content, that leaves the open question: "who cares"? This article can benefit primarily from using more secondary sources that directly describe Bennett and her accomplishments, and reducing reliance on primary sources. If insufficient secondary sources exist, the subject may not meet article notability guidelines, regardless of her accomplishments. User may have additional constructive comments or resources. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi --Animalparty!, Thanks for this clear explanation. Let's see if User:Ekhewitt can find some more secondary sources to back up her statements. I'm inclined to think she is probably notable regardless as she has held several important positions and lead some high profile projects, but obviously we may need to trim the article somewhat. I am also pinging who organized the event where this article was created in case she has any incite. If i can be of help to anyone involved please just let me know Jason.nlw (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)