User talk:TriciaLeslie/sandbox

Figureskatingfan's review
User:TriciaLeslie, I'll use this talk page space to review your draft. I may seem a little harsh at times, but I'm following standard practices of reviewing Wikipedia articles. Usually, I would go through the prose, and I may later on, but I don't think it's a worthwhile use of both our time. I also tend to explain and cite WP policies and policies, but I won't do that, either. I suspect that you're not all that interested in them, anyway.

Formatting: I went ahead and changed the formatting of this draft. WP uses different levels of headings (Level 1, Level 2, etc.), doesn't italicize the heading titles, and uses sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings. So I went ahead and made those corrections for you. I suggest that you use bullets in your list instead of numbers, but I didn't make those changes. It's easy enough to do, so we can make those changes later, if it proves necessary.

References: This could be an issue for this BLP (biography of living person). We already spoke about the importance of reliable, secondary sources. None of the references in your list at the bottom of the page are either of those things. I did a quick google search about Dr. Douglas and was unable to find anything myself. The bad news, then, is that without those types of sources, I doubt that this BLP will be accepted. If I published it under my username, I predict that another editor will come along and submit it for quick deletion, meaning that it will be removed. If you try to submit it for draft review, it will be rejected. Unfortunately, this kind of thing often happens when the subject is female, non-binary, or non-white because there's often not the kind of sources available to fulfill the strict requirements. I'm sure you're familiar with that issue in academia. If you know of any reliable, secondary sources out there about Dr. Douglas, please bring them to my attention and I can demonstrate how to use them. The other issue regarding sources with this BLP is that it doesn't follow WP policy about verifiability, which states, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." In other words, every claim you make MUST be substantiated by a reliable, secondary source. You simply don't have that now.

There are other issues regarding encyclopedic tone, but I won't go into detail, since the major issues are the two I cite above. To be honest, I doubt that this BLP will pass mustard. That's regretful and unfortunate, I know. If you have any more questions, you can respond here or we can communicate in email or other ways. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)