This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Exchange of messages posted between February 9, 2020 (16:29) and March 10, 2020 (17:13)
HI Wendy!
OK, here we are! I have just now added the template that indicates this is a talk page; it's nothing special, but almost all talk pages should have one, so that's now done. Then, I created this new section (by clicking on the New section button on the top bar, on the same line as the little Search Wikipedia window).>
Now, we need to go into the nitty-gritty of building up your draft article. As you can imagine, there is quite a lot to do, so if it's OK with you, I will set you small tasks to execute, so that you actually do the work yourself, first by reading some guideline, then taking actions; would that be OK with you? If you let me know within the next few minutes, I can give you a bit of attention for a short while right now, to guide you in the right direction. Over and out! Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wendy, (ah! you have returned!... ), so I'll give you a first pointer. One thing I will do myself, is add a template on your draft page, to indicate that it is the draft page of an article under construction. So, please don't worry if you see this appear.
The next task for you to do is to read this guideline, and then apply section headings (including one for your 'References') that conform with that guideline. Once you will have done that, you'll see that your draft will look a little more like an article!
I will keep an eye on your draft, and will look out for a message from you, here, to alert me once you're done; OK? I will give you a few hours, and will come back later tonight (it's 17:30 where I live, here in West Wales).
I hope my approach works for you; if not, then please say so and we'll do it differently. For now: good luck!
P.S.: Note how I have adjusted your response: go into your watchlist (the very top line of your Wikipedia screen), then you'll see a new screen with a line-by-line breakdown of all the articles you've worked on so far, including this one, of course. Then, open up all the changes and locate this one (my latest one, by then) and consult the the "diff" (or "prev") for my present edit (the one you are reading now): you will see the previous edit you made (on yellow background on the left) and my changes (on green background on the right); the red characters will reflect the changes I've applied. BUT if you already know how to do all this, then please forgive me for belabouring this point in too much detail...
Patrick I have created headings, and included subheadings under "publications" to categorize them. By the way, please do not apologize for your explanations: if I have encountered a thing before, then an explanation will refresh my understanding; if I have not encountered it before, then it is well needed!
OK, Wendy; well done so far. At first glance, I can see a few glitches, and could fix them easily for you if you wish, unless you would prefer to have a go at fixing them yourself? If you like to learn from a process of discovery, then this might be a great application for you, as it would help you to learn about editing here by trial and error. May I suggest you have a go, until the frustration level is too high, and then ping me again when you want to give up? BUT, once again: well done so far!
As it's now about 19:30 here, I might not get to it until tomorrow, but will have plenty of time tomorrow morning, to apply any changes you might require. Please may I ask in what time zone you are located? You don't have to answer that if you would prefer not to, but it might help us in scheduling our interactions; it's up to you. On another topic, have you undertaken all the learning available through the Wikipedia Adventure? If not, it might be an idea to see if that learning method suits you too? In any case: well done, and speak with you again later.
Great, Wendy! Good luck with fixing the glitches and I'll have a good look tomorrow morning, then take any actions you want from me and then wait for your feedback. I will also propose some further actions on your part, for your consideration.
For now, just one thing (which I mentioned before): when you reply, please add 1 semicolon to each iteration, and also remember to ping me via the user reply, using the curly brackets: {{...}}, notsquare ones [[...]]. So, it's {{U|Pdebee|Patrick}}, not [[User:Pdebee|Patrick]].
Thank you for declaring your time zone; it's good to know when we can best work together. Please always feel free to suggest dates/times that are best for you, and I'll do the same. Until tomorrow, then.
HI Wendy!
First of all, note how my insertion of the {{Outdent}} template (immediately above) has caused the indentation to end, and brought this section of prose back to the left margin of the page. So, your next reply to me would begin with a single colon, and then we'll start adding a colon for each of our interactions, as we did above.
Secondly, congratulations on all the splendid work you did the other day! Your draft is now looking a lot more like an article! Very well done on finding out so many elements on how to achieve this result.
Thirdly, I can now see two additional tasks:
surrounding bare URLs with citation templates, for which I have now created a new section below with blank (empty) templates, to help you with their various formats for different media.
Next, I will edit your draft (without your permission... ), to italicise titles (there are only a few) and also to insert one citation template for the first bare url ( Done); that way, you'll be able to see how it's done and repeat the task for all the others. OK? I'll keep an eye on your progress and will be glad to assist you further later on, if you need any assistance.
Since it is now nearly 12:15 noon here, I am going to break for lunch and then return to perform these tasks between 1pm-2pm my time (8am-9am your time), and will give you a quick heads up when I'm done. Hope this helps. More later, then.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 12:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: HI Wendy! I have now completed my two tasks. By the way, the first link did not work for me, so I converted the second bare URL to the citation format; over to you, now.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 13:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Patrick Thank you for helping me with all this. I tried to cite one URL correctly, by aping what I think you did with the James Still award URL citation. But I am not confident that I did this correctly. (I think I don't properly understand the concept of templates, yet.) Would you have a look? Thanks ever so much.
You're most welcome. Yours was a good, first attempt. Basically, a Wikipedia 'template' is a utilitarian function that will produce an outcome from processing data passed to it by you, an editor who supplies that data via parameters, such as |title=, for example, to define the title of a book. In the case of the {{Cite book}} template, the parameters are related to the details of a book, and the outcome is a neatly formatted citation that appears in the 'References' section. The objective is obviously to ensure that all book references are formatted in the same way, which are therefore displayed in a standard fashion. There is a whole family of citation templates: for books, journals, magazines, websites, etc., and the editor will select the appropriate one in each case, as their range of parameters will differ. For example, the {{Cite journal}} template features parameters such as |volume=..., |series=..., |issues=..., etc., whereas the {{Cite website}} template will always require the |url=.... So, all of these unique characteristics are defined via the parameters pertinent to each template. The way the Wikipedia system recognises a template is by the presence of curly brackets: {{...}} which act as delimiters, and always have to be balanced.
Now, looking back at your first attempt, I have completed it as follows:
added the (optional) abbreviated reference name to the <ref> tag, by coding <ref name="ASA2019">; if you wanted to reuse the same citation again later on in the article, you would then be able to refer back to it by that abbreviated name, thus saving you from having to provide the whole cite template all over again (I'll teach you how to do this another time, but it's really easy);
removed the bare URL which you had kept just ahead of the {cite... command (which was also missing its second curly bracket {);
added this second, missing left curly bracket: {{cite...;
added the missing pair of curly brackets that mark the end delimiter for the 'cite' template itself: ...}};
added the missing end delimiter for the ref tag itself: </ref> (note the /, indicating it's an end tag).
That's it for now, Wendy. When you're ready, just go ahead and apply the citation templates to all your other bare URLs, and feel free to ask me to help if necessary. I'm in no doubt you can do this, as you were nearly successful with your first attempt; once you'll have done a few, it will become second nature to you, as it does to all of us after a while. Good luck and, when you're done, we can start another section here for the next tasks.
Hello, Patrick Thanks to your instruction, I attempted to list the references again. By copying-and-pasting yours, it worked sometimes; other times it did not. (I do understand that I ought to learn it better than just to copy-paste, but it is somewhat overwhelming.)
Here are a few questions.
One of the references near the end of the prose paragraphs, is now listed as ref #2. It does indeed refer back to the same website used for another reference. Is this ok?
The Laurel of Asheville reference failed, and no longer has a superscript number within the paragraph.
I'm sure that my tuition is taking lots of your time, and I do appreciate it.
Please don't worry, as I am happy to work at a pace convenient to you. I have now looked at your work of yesterday and you've done well, congratulations; you're now getting the hang of this! There were a couple of 'orphaned' ref tags (<ref>) and </ref>) residual from duplicated copy/paste operations, probably, and I've removed them for you, as you can see from the 'View history' log. Here are my answers to your questions:
Ref #2 - Yes, that's absolutely fine, since you wanted to re-use that same citation in another part of your draft. And you've now given me the opportunity () to show you how to re-use an existing citation, by reducing it to its abbreviated form thanks to the 'name=' parameter (as I mentioned in my earlier post above), by simply adding a single "/" immediately before the ending ">": <ref name="JSA2017" />; you can see the 'diff' in the 'View history', here. So, instead of coding the whole 'cite web' template all over again, you simply copy the existing <ref name="JSA2017"> (because that is the citation's assigned name), and simply add the "/" immediately before the final ">"; the system will then refer back to the full 'cite' template of the same name, and add another superscript letter to the existing entry in the list of references. Clever, isn't it?
The 'Laurel of Ashville' was fine but I've renamed it to <ref name="TLA2017">, which is shorter.
I have also converted the bare URL for the ref to the 'Western North Carolina Historical Association' to a full {{cite web}} template and called it <ref name="WNCHA2016"> (see the 'diff' here).
Finally, the 'citizenstribune' link does not work at my end, as it returns the following message: "www.citizentribune.com’s server IP address could not be found." Does it behave the same way at your end, when you click on it? For me, the link appears when I google 'citizens tribune Terry Roberts', but it then fails when I click on the link. I've left the link in your draft for now, but would suggest you consider removing it if it fails at your end also, as it really shouldn't remain in the article in those circumstances.
Now, in your Articles section, there are two remaining bare URLs: one for a journal article and the other for a webinar link. Would you like to have a go at converting those two also? You'd use a {{cite journal}} template (see 'Sample' section below) for the former, and another {{cite web}} for the latter. This would be another opportunity for you to gain confidence with completing these templates, which Wikipedia editors use all the time.
Finally-finally, once you've done these two remaining citations, we can move on to the next set of tasks about your draft article. Would that be OK?
Good luck, Wendy; you're doing great! Please keep me posted, here, if you need further guidance.
I looked at the journal templates, and I don't believe I have all the information needed for any of the templates. How do I deal with the fact that I cannot list page numbers, for example. The Great Smokies Review is indeed a periodical, but to my knowledge it exists only in digital form.
The citizenstribune link does work when I click it, as it's listed in the references. I wonder if it is within a particular country firewall - is that a possibility for why you cannot use it in UK and I can use it in the US?
Having attempted the journal, I will get to the final reference later tonight or tomorrow. Please do not feel impelled to reply as I have not yet tried everything.
I am afraid that again I must ask for your help. I believed I had copied and pasted templated references that had been proven to have been done correctly, however, my multiple changes may simply have been like digging myself deeper into the hole I had made.
As you can tell by looking at the edit, I was working with The Great Smokies Review article.
I know this shouldn't be quite this involved. I do apologize. Thank you for your help.
Thank you for making contact again, and no problem at all for requesting assistance; I am always happy to help. I have now completed the subsection on Articles. As you will see, it's OK to select only those parameters for which there is data in the source, like 'issue=' if that's all there is for a journal; if there are no pages, then it's OK to leave 'page=' out altogether. Now we need to apply the {{Cite book}} template to the list of books in the other three subsections (novels, etc.). If you'd like, I could do the novels, to show you how it's done, and then you could do the others? We'll also need the ISBNs, so maybe you could supply those and I'll fit them into the templates for you. Just let me know your preference and I'll go along with that, OK?
It would be quite helpful if you were to do the three novels, and then I could attempt the other two categories of writings. I have added the ISBNs to the end of each listing, trying to include both hardcover and paperback editions where appropriate. For the first novel, first edition, I could not find an ISBN.
Thanks so much. Kind regards; Wendy Ikoku (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have applied two templates, one for each edition of A Short Time to Stay Here. I also verified the specific details of each edition's cover, and couldn't find a hardcover edition (on BookFinder) for the 2012 edition. I also applied the 13-digit version of the ISBNs, with hyphens in the right places. Please may I suggest that you consider converting all the other books, for practice? It won't matter if you make any mistakes, Wendy, as I'll fix them later (if there are any, of course...). OK for now? Best wishes and let me know when you want my assistance, or when you're done, whichever comes first. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect you may have given up on me! (It has taken me a long time to do this most recent component.) I have applied the template to the information on the remainder of the books, apart from one that I could find no publication details about; and we may have to delete this one. Would you mind having a look and verifying what I have done? Thanks for your help. With kind regards;Wendy Ikoku (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Wendy!
Indeed, I have not given up on you! You seem to be doing fine with the citation templates and I trust you are getting used to them; it's not really difficult, but requires a bit of practice, like all things new. You will see that I have applied a few changes today, which I commented on in my edit summaries: 1) cleared the 'first edition' details when the date is the same as in the '|date=' parameter, and 2) I added the '|authormask=' parameter, since all the books in the Novels section are by the same author, so it's better not to repeat it for every entry in the bulleted list.
Here are a few items for you to do, when you're ready:
Apply the authormask= parameter in the other sections. Since some of the books in the Education section were written with Laura Billing, you should separate all these into a second sub-group (within that same Education section) before applying '|authormask=' so that, when you're done, that section will have one list of the books written by Roberts alone, and a second list of the books he wrote with Billing. It's good to keep each sub-group in chronological order.
Update those |location= parameters which are currently still empty; you can easily find these, either by looking into the books themselves if you have access to them, or by googling the publisher's name, which should bring up a window showing their headquarters' address.
Delete all the other parameters that are empty, i.e. without any data.
I'll keep an eye on your draft and will be happy to assist if necessary; just feel free to ask again, OK? You're doing great.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Speedy Gonzalez! What was the reference for which you could not find any data? Please let me know, so I could try a search myself. Did you search using BookFinder? Thank you.
At last I found publication information for Discussing First Freedoms, as there was a facsimile reproduction of the publication information page on the Freedom Forum site. Thank you.
Excellent news! Well done on persevering into success. I'm now taking a break until tomorrow, but please leave a message if necessary. Otherwise, we can move on to the next few tasks, although it shouldn't take much longer until you can publish your draft. More later, and well done once more.
I looked at your draft again today, and concluded that it looked odd to have duplicate entries for each book that had both a hard- and softcover, especially since most of these duplicates were also published the same year. So, I experimented with adding, on the first entry of a pair, a set of parentheses containing the {{ISBN}} template for the second cover, separated by a comma from the detail of whether the second cover was hard or soft. The result looks better to me, and is closer to the guideline at WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY#ISBNs: "When you provide an ISBN for an edition, complement this with the precise publication details: this will help point out exactly what the ISBN denotes". If you agree that this looks better to you also, then I would propose that we leave it like that. Of course, we could have created those lists of books without using the {{cite book}} template at all, but one of the benefits of doing so is that it would be very easy for you to re-use these as citations in future, should you ever decide to refer to—or quote from— the contents of any of the books, from within your article itself. Please let me know what you think, and if you agree with what I've done today, then we can move on to the next step. By the way, please would you complete the {{cite web}} template I created today for the link to the 'citizentribune' article I can't display from here in the UK: all you need to do is add the appropriate details to replace the dummy entries I coded in title=, last= & first= names (if an author is named for that article), and the publisher=. Good luck and best wishes. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have also added the Awards section, with a dummy entry for you to complete. I found that format in the article on Hilary Mantel. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted the awards in the new section, and perhaps I should not have done so, but I added some additional articles. I masked the author (or thought I did) when there were several in a consecutive list which were the same. However, apparently I did not mask the second author. Perhaps I should rather have used "authormask=1,2"?
Well done on completing the list of awards, and also on finding more articles. I have applied three updates a few minutes ago:
to mask the second author, the code is |author2-mask=1, and I have now added this where applicable (the digit '2' in 'author2-mask' matches the digit in the 'last2' and 'first2' parameters, so you can define which of the multiple author names to suppress). Please double check that you are happy with how it looks now, but it looks fine to me;
I removed the brackets I added earlier as delimiters for the award titles, and I apologise if this confused you: I simply wanted to delimit the [award title] somehow, but the brackets are not needed once the award title has been added;
I also fixed a date typo in passing: '204' > '2004'.
In summary, I think we're done with the whole Publications section, which looks great to me! Well done on all your efforts to provide all the data and for learning how to complete these templates. I believe you've acquired a skill which will serve you well here, as a Wikipedian editor, for all your future articles!
We now need to move to the final phase of preparing the draft article, and please let me know when you have time to dedicate to this task, for which I'll then create a new section here at the talk page since this one has grown quite long. I'll be around for the rest of this week, but away for a few days early next week. I'll be glad to carry on providing assistance until your draft has been published, which we'll do together as well. More later, then.
Thank you so much! I think your masking of the second author looks perfect. Thanks too for fixing the brackets in the awards section, and for catching the date typo.
I have some time this week to work on the rest of the draft article. I so appreciate your help. I would be up the creek without a paddle otherwise.
That's great, Wendy; I'll start the new section below in a few minutes, but it will take me another 15 minutes to complete, so thanks for being patient in case you want to start straight away. And also: you're most welcome; it's a pleasure to assist you.
Exchange of messages posted between March 10, 2020 (18:16) and May 10, 2020 (19:38)
OK, Wendy; here we go!
One of the things we all need to do here as Wikipedian editors, is to justify the notability of everything we contribute to our encyclopedia. For this, there are guidelines (accessible through their own article-like pages), and the two important areas with which you need to familiarise yourself while you complete the drafting of your article on Terry Roberts are:
Since Roberts is both an author and an academic, please would you read the two above articles, and particularly the following sections:
WP:ANYBIO: a list of three basic conditions to be satisfied in any biography;
WP:AUTHOR: a list of four basic conditions to be satisfied by any author;
WP:ACADEMIC: a list of eight basic conditions, from which one needs to be satisfied by academics.
Once you've done that, I would strongly recommend that you write your own explanation on why you think Roberts is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia and, specifically, which criteria of notability apply in his case.
The reason why I appear to be setting you an assignment is simply that, within seconds of promoting your draft into main article space, it will become instantly visible and reviewed by any number of editors who will determine whether or not your article meets the relevant notability requirements. If one of them decides it doesn't, then the article will very quickly be tagged for deletion. Of course, that's not the outcome you want, and it is therefore my responsibility to ensure this doesn't happen. However, since you wrote the article, it is important that you prepare yourself to discuss cogently why your article should not be deleted. Therefore, I would suggest you consider reading the guidelines at the pages I listed above, and then write a small paragraph looking something like this:
"The article on Terry Roberts should be included in Wikipedia because it meets the following notability requirements: ..."
"I have also read and followed the guidelines related to biographies of living persons, and I am satisfied that my article meets these guidelines."
All we're doing here is prepare you—as a kind of rehearsal, I guess—to defend your article, so that it does not get deleted. For what it's worth, I believe your draft looks good and you have done a great job getting it to this point. But since neither I nor the other reviewing editors are familiar with Roberts' work, it is up to you to justify why he is notable. So, now is the time for you to scrutinise your draft against the guidelines, and to make sure it meets the important criteria of notability. When you're done, I will review what you've written and will advise accordingly.
I hope this help, but don't hesitate to ask me for more help, because I would like to ensure your article stands the best chance of being accepted by our community of editors, and I will stand with you every step of the way, OK?
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 18:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Patrick. Thank you for this. I had previously read the notability and the BLP articles, and read them again this evening. I took note of the sections as you highlighted them, and drafted a statement that uses the characteristics specified as a start at justification.
In the article itself, Terry Roberts' membership of selective societies is not mentioned. Question: should I correct this? Below is the draft statement. I would certainly appreciate your critical eye on this!
"The article on Terry Roberts should be included in Wikipedia because it meets the following notability requirements:
He has received awards and honors for his novels, such as the Willie Morris Award for Southern Fiction, the James Still Award for writing about the American South, the Thomas Wolfe Memorial Literary Award.
He is widely recognized in the field of education for his contributions regarding the role of structured dialogue in the classroom
As an author he is known by his peers as well as his readers for capturing time and place in novels
As an educational leader he is respected for his role in school improvement, and for promoting the role of Paideia seminar and socratic dialogue in classrooms across the country
He has written and co-written many articles in educational periodicals
He is an elected member of the North Caroliniana Society, an organization dedicated to the appreciation of North Carolina’s heritage through encouragement of scholarly research and writing, and sponsorship of professional seminars and conferences. He is also the current elected president of the Thomas Wolfe Society, an organization promoting appreciation and study of the works of Thomas Wolfe.
I have also read and followed the guidelines related to biographies of living persons, and I am satisfied that my article meets these guidelines."
Thank you for your help with this stage, as with earlier stages in my effort to submit a Wikipedia article. Kind regards, Wendy Ikoku (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wendy,
Thank you for taking the time to complete the statement above; well done. (I took the liberty of reformatting it a little bit, mainly to number all your points for ease of reference.)
First of all, it's excellent that you'd already read the subject guidelines on notability and BLP, and I hope you didn't mind my suggestion, as I didn't know you'd already read these.
Secondly, here is my feedback on the above:
Your statement on Roberts' notability is very good and I would suggest you consider whether each of your points can be corroborated by a source, particularly #2, #4 and #6. I think that, if you could find at least one source for each of these three items, then your statement would be strengthened.
Regarding your question about Roberts' memberships: yes, you could insert these in prose, as a separate paragraph at the end of the Career section, providing that you can substantiate them with a reference to a secondary source (either printed or online is fine).
When you've completed these two tasks, then what I would like to do is ask one of my editor friends to assess your draft, as I have become too closely involved with it. I would recommend that we do this, as it will be of great value to have a fresh pair of editorial eyes to look at it. Please let me know if you're OK with that idea? If so, then I'll get the ball rolling as soon as I have your approval.
Finally, you will notice that I have added a bit of temporary code (commented out for now) at the very end of your draft. This is in preparation for the eventuality of your article being considered a stub, given that its two sections currently amount to 390 words, whereas a stub article is generally up to 500 words. The two templates I have added would classify your article under 'American novelist' and 'American academic', but we can add some more if you deem it necessary or appropriate.
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] PS: BTW, I have changed my plans for next week and will now be available to carry on working with you on your draft.
I do not mind at all your suggesting reading for me! And it would be great for an editor friend of yours to review what has been done. I am working to get appropriate references for the selective society memberships (#6), as well as #2 and #4. Would all these be added to the article, the memberships in a new paragraph as you describe, and the recognition in educational circles earlier in the Career section?
Thank you for putting my mind at rest; and I am glad you had already familiarised yourself with those important guidelines. Yes, the plan you're suggesting would be perfect: insert as much evidence as possible into the article prose, and add suitably corroborating citations, since this is now second nature to you. I look forward to reading it all in due course, then we can proceed to the next step. Best wishes and good luck.
It has been a good three weeks, I see, since I described what I planned to do. I have inserted some prose as described, and included corroborating citations where possible. I am awaiting an update to a website for at least one of these. For another, I have a paper listing of the society members, but not an electronic citation. I don't really know how to include this. But I thought I had best have a go, and get started anyway.
I do apologize for the length of time this has taken, and I have not given up!
Thank you for your update above, and please don’t worry; I am pleased for you that you’re making progress, as it’s good to take the time to complete the task properly and not cut corners. I am still logging in regularly and carrying out minimal editing (like the present post) on my iPad, but not heavy duty sessions because my desktop is currently out of action. But this shouldn’t prevent me from still assisting with your article, as it seems you’re close to completion. Please give me a couple of days to look at your recent updates. Also, feel free to insert the data of your paper listing of the society members here at the talk page if you prefer and, if it helps, I could then suggest the best template to use for it. As mentioned above, I’ll also be glad to ask for second opinions when you feel ready to do so. Until then, please keep up the good work and stay safe.
Thanks for your message. Please don't worry about getting to this while you rely only an iPad, which I imagine must be rather difficult. I researched how to cite a pamphlet or leaflet, and had a go (reference 10). I can send you the images of the paper program front cover, inside front cover, and the page showing the names if that would be helpful. I worry how the citation is sufficient corroboration, if it cannot be looked up.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but I often use the iPad for smallish edits although I must admit to preferring the use of a real keyboard . As you will see, I used the {{cite report}} template for the Annual Report, but kept your original data between comment tags for now; so, please delete the whole comment if you’re happy with what I’ve done. If you happen to have access to a physical copy of the Annual Report, then please consider completing the other parameters that I have left empty, if the report contains an author’s name and a page number for the announcement itself; you could even enter an excerpt of the announcement in the ‘quote=‘ parameter, if you wish. I also added a few name="..." parameters to other citations, for completeness. Finally, I hope you won’t mind too much that I also added reminders of two other facts to corroborate; it’s always best to preempt future requests for citations. Best wishes.
I appreciate the reminders and have accomplished some of what you suggested (such as the page number from the annual report, although an author is not listed) and citations using the cite web template. I hope that, if you have time to check these, you will find that they are suitable. Best wishes.
Dear Wendy,
Thank you for your reply above, 10 days ago. I apologise for taking so long to reply. My desktop is now repaired and I took a bit of a break for Easter. I hope you are keeping well? Please find my final comments in the three bulleted sections below:
I have now looked at all your citations with a fresh pair of eyes, and would offer the following comments, one for each numbered reference:
1. The citizenstribune.com link is unsuccessful for me, as it returns message: "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons." We've discussed this before and I suspect other editors might view this as unusable if the information cannot be checked. I would suggest you keep it in for now, but expect it to be challenged.
2. Although that page lists Roberts as the 2017 winner, the page is mainly about Michael Croley, the 2020 Recipient. Isn't there a similar page for Roberts as the 2017 recipient? If not, then keep this page, as it is the only one we can use.
3. Proven Ancestors First Families. This shows "John Roberts, Sr." and "Robert Roberts", although the reader has no corroboration of a link between these "Roberts" and TR, other than the same surname. (I know I appear to be difficult, but I am simply reacting to the data available.)
4. Is TW Appalachian? This is useful and, to make sure, I've added the "at=" parameter to the citation template, in order to guide the reader to the specific part of the page.
5. Paideia - Our approach this is useful, but does not mention TR in any way.
6. ASCD Presenter Bio - Terry Roberts. This is excellent! I suggest you use that alongside Ref. #5 above, for the previous sentence.
7. Winners of the Willie Morris Award for Southern Fiction. This is also excellent.
8. terryrobertsauthor.com. Unfortunately, this is a primary source and will be challenged as such. However, since you are only using it to corroborate the "Sir Walter Raleigh Award for Fiction given annually for the best novel by a North Carolinian", it might be OK.
9. Thomas Wolfe Memorial Literary Award Winner. This is excellent.
10. Thomas Wolfe Memorial Literary Award. Ditto. I have also added the "at=" parameter to guide the reader to the specific part of the page.
11. Annual Report 2018-2019 (pamphlet). Although this cannot be verified by other Wikipedia editors unless they have access to the physical pamphlet, there should be latitude shown here, by assuming good faith on your part.
12. The North Caroliniana Society - Membership. This is useful as it confirms the existence of the society and its goals.
13. Thomas Wolfe Society Board of Directors. Luckily, I was able to access this website once today; all my other attempts failed to display the page. So, I was able to see Terry Roberts' name listed, which I hope other readers and editors will too.
I have looked at the prose, which is well written and factual. The only concern I have is that the first section reads:
Terry Roberts’ direct ancestors have lived in the mountains of Western North Carolina since the time of the American Revolutionary War.[3] His family has farmed in the Big Pine section of Madison County, North Carolina along the French Broad River for generations …
which is quite similar to the prose at his website (Ref.# 8):
Terry Roberts’ direct ancestors have lived in the mountains of Western North Carolina since the time of the Revolutionary War. His family farmed in the Big Pine section of Madison County for generations and is also prominent in the Madison County town of Hot Springs, a consistent setting in his novels. …
Please consider rewording the biographical section, making sure to place Terry Roberts first and his family second, in terms of the importance for this article, and to paraphrase what is available from the sources.
Finally, I will also add {{cn}} templates for existing content that still requires corroboration.
I hope this helped some more; we should soon be able to ask another editor to assess what we've done.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your careful eye and your suggestions born of experience. I have heeded much of your advice, and have a few questions, about some items in the bulleted section on citations.
Reference 1. The citizens tribune link works, at least here in the United States. Is it possible that some links are unavailable in some countries?
Reference 3. I do not have yet, but think I am getting a corroboration of the link between the subject and the names listed in Proven Ancestors First Families.
Reference 5. I have added another reference to the same website that lists TR as Director of the National Paideia Center.
Regarding the second bulleted item, I have reworded the paragraph.
And as to the third bulleted section about the [citation needed] templates, the PhD dissertation is listed in the Literary Criticism section of Works Published. Could this be the citation that's needed about the doctorate?
Again, thanks for your continued help. I hope you are staying well and safe.
Please forgive me for not acknowledging your above message earlier than now, which you posted a whole week ago; thank you. I hope you are keeping well and safe? All is well here in West Wales. In answer to your questions:
Reference 1. Yes, that's quite possible. Let's wait and see what other editors might propose about this.
Reference 3. That's excellent; thank you for locating and documenting this source.
Reference 5. Well done.
Yes: use the PhD dissertation listed in the Literary Criticism section of Works Published for the citation that's needed about the doctorate; great idea.
Finally, please don't hesitate to use any biographical details (date of birth, etc.) that might have been published within any of his books, such as on dustjackets or front/back matter. We already have citation templates for all his publications, so all we'd need are page numbers.
Please consider removing all the other sentences that I tagged with {{cn}} templates earlier; it is best to remove uncorroborated content than to leave it in without sources; you could always re-insert content later, as and when sources become available, either in print or online. Once you've done this final bit of clearing, then we will be in an excellent position to ask for a second opinion. Also, I hope you won't mind if I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, just in case you haven't already, as it is always possible that another editor might ask. As ever, I hope this helps; I'd like to add you've done a great job while also learning how to be a Wikipedian editor.
I am sorry it has taken me a long time to get to work on the suggestions you made, for which, thank you very much. I have been implementing some of the changes just now, and have realized that I inadvertently caused to disappear the beginning of the section titled "Career". I believe that it is not deleted, but that some of the coding I used is incorrect.
I wonder if you can help with this? I feel sure it is due to the gap in working on this.
Thank you, once again, for your expertise and your attention!
I believe I have cleaned up all that was marked as needing attention. Will you let me know two things: a) if you agree; and b) what my next step should be in requesting review?
Once again, I wish to apologise for taking a whole week to reply to you; thank you so much for your patience with me! Here at the Wiki, I finally managed to bring a big project to a significant milestone today, so that's very pleasing to the mind . In real life, all is going very well, and I currently have a very busy research schedule on a couple of French poets, and I am also drafting my next collection of poems. If you add to all this the fact that Spring is a blessing of most excellent weather here on the West Coast of Wales and I go for long walks along the river and to our local beach every day, I am hopeful that you will begin to understand that time is a precious commodity, as it almost always is. So, thank you for your kind understanding.
I agree with you fully that you have done a great job here, Wendy, and yes: your draft is ready for review. So, I am now going to collapse this section, and open a new one for the next phase of activity. Thank you once again for all your diligent learning and application.
Exchange of messages posted between March 10, 2020 (20:03) and June 10, 2020 (14:47)
Dear Ryan,
Long time no speak! I hope you are keeping well and safe? All is well here, on the West Coast of Wales.
Please may I impose on your kindness and expertise, once again? Our new colleague Wendy joined Wikipedia on February 2 of this year, intent on creating the present article. So, I have been assisting her with her first big project, but since I have been closely involved in its development, it would be most helpful if you would find the time to review it and suggest any areas still in need of improvement, please? The only elements currently missing are categories and other technical back matter, but I can supply all that before we move the article into main article space, depending on your assessment of its state of readiness. Your advice and guidance will help us determine whether or not we could go ahead, as I would like Wendy's first article to be successful. As ever, very many thanks for your time and consideration, Ryan.
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging you (at last!), as I should have done above in the first place. It only took me two days to realise I had coded [[User:Rhododendrites|Ryan]] instead of {{U|Rhododendrites|Ryan}}... ol' age, I guess... .
Thank you in advance, and please keep well and safe.
Hi Pdebee. Hope you're well. Both of your pings worked -- I just haven't had time to reply. :) (PS: I prefer to use my username for on-wiki messaging).
I've taken a look at the article. One thing jumps out at me: there are practically no independent sources cited here. When people review drafts for mainsapce, one of the main things they look for is the extent to which the subject has been covered by independent sources. That is, sources published by people with no connection to the subject. Sources by Roberts, speaker bios, employee bios, etc. can be used sometimes, but their use should typically be limited and they don't themselves do anything to satisfy notability. Winning awards (especially notable awards) can help, but citations to independent sources help to show the significance of a given award, as opposed to citing the award-granting organization itself.
If independent sources can be found, there's probably not much that would need to change about the text itself, but phrases like "widely known" would be considered promotional without citing a really good independent source for that kind of claim.
In total, I think there's a good start to an article here if only you can supplement what you already have with independent sources. (Or, to be more precise: ... if only you can make the sourcing you already have supplemental to independent sources).
It's possible that my reading is based on a stricter interpretation of our guidelines than some would give, however. I typically try to err on the side of caution when providing advice to new users -- I wouldn't want to say "looks great!" and then have someone else nominate it for deletion.
Thank you for your cogent and detailed reply, and for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review the present draft. Your advice is most helpful, as it goes straight to the point about the need for independent sources. Wendy is now facing a choice, on which I will expand below. Thank you once again, Ryan; your guidance is always much appreciated. Please keep well and stay safe. With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 12:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wendy,
I assume you have read Ryan's assessment, above. Please take heart at the positive in his conclusion: "I think there's a good start to an article here if only you can supplement what you already have with independent sources.". The way I see it, you now have three choices:
1. Publish the current draft anyway. In which case, I will guide you through the process of moving your draft into main article space.
For: your project is completed.
Against: the article runs the risk of being tagged for deletion because of notability issues.
Against: you might end up wasting time if there aren't any more sources that you might have missed so far.
3. Suspend the project until you find independent sources.
For: it takes the pressure off until you find unimpeachable sources of notability that may well become available over time.
Against: your project is delayed, possibly indefinitely.
Whatever you decide to do, Wendy, I will support you although, personally, I would caution against publishing until you are totally confident that the article will be successful in demonstrating Roberts' notability through independent sources.
Please kindly let me know your intent? Thank you, Wendy.
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your support and helpful instruction!
I suppose the best thing to do is not to try to publish now, seeing as there is not enough in the way of biographical or professional material about Roberts (as you describe "option 3"). To try to discover the kinds of references I could seek, I searched on wikipedia for another living writer from this area of the mountains of NC, who has not had best-sellers. I see that although there are only two references, one is a review of a book published in O Magazine, and the other is a publisher interview with the author. Perhaps I ought to go down that path.
I have used so much of your time, but I wonder whether you would mind giving advice about how to store the draft as it is. Will it disappear after a certain length of time; ought I to try to store the "source" draft in the event that I can re-use it at another time if better sources should appear?
Again, thank you, Pdebee, for all the work you've done to help me. I certainly appreciate it!
It was a very good idea to look at the article(s) of other author(s) with a similar profile, and determine the kind of sources used in those, as articles and/or interviews printed in major literary newspapers or magazines would most definitely help. To this end, I ran a search on "North Carolina literary magazines", for example, and found the website of the North Carolina Literary Review, but drew a blank when I searched its directory for occurrences of "Terry Roberts". As we touched on before: there may well be printed materials available as sources, but you'd probably have to consider seeking assistance from a librarian local to you on tracking down reviews or interviews of TR by independent, reliable sources. And, of course, new material could come up in the future, especially if he writes another novel that ends up being widely reviewed. So, patience and perseverance may very well pay off over time, and I'd certainly encourage you not to give up.
As for preserving your current draft, nothing should happen to it here because it is in your own user space, and it could stay dormant like this for years until you decide what to do with it. What sometimes happens is that a bot might very occasionally update it when a template parameter is deprecated, for example. But if you want to make extra sure to keep it, then all you'd need to do is simply click on the main Edit button at the very top of the page (thereby opening the whole article), then Select all the text and copy it completely into a separate Word document, for example, where you could keep it in a folder for your Wikipedia-related notes and data. This way, it would be saved in its original Wikitext format and, should the draft somehow disappear from Wikipedia, then you'd easily be able to re-create it from that external backup copy.
Well, I very much enjoyed working with you and will remain available if you think I might be able to assist you some more. Please allow me to say that you did a great job here, and it was a pleasure watching you learn lots of new skills and becoming a Wikipedia editor. I hope you will stay and turn your newly acquired talents to other articles that are of interest to you, and for which you have access to sources. Or, you could decide to just fix typos when you come across them. I started editing Wikipedia because I had lots of sources about Andy Irvine and thought his article could be more complete. After a long hiatus, I came back and began to learn many of the editorial tricks and guidelines, which I now feel confident in applying to almost any article. I hope you will similarly continue to enjoy contributing to our encyclopaedia, and I'll always be happy to help you when and where I can. So, please keep in touch?
Until next time, please keep well and joyful, and stay safe.
I hope you are keeping well and staying safe in these distressing times.
I have just added some additional sources that I found about Roberts' books, and wonder if you'd mind taking a look at the source quality, as well as the portions of narrative I've added.
Yes, thank you; all is well here, and I hope the same applies to you?
First, I am pleased for you that you were able to identify an interesting review, in print only, by Zackary Vernon. Since it spans at least from page 31 to 43, it would seem to be a very interesting find, and you might consider extracting a few sentences from this review, to use as quotes in your article. If you wish, please feel free to simply type such selected quotes here, in our talk page, and I'll format them into the article for you, so you can see what templates to use for this purpose.
Second, Here is a list of small changes I applied today:
Since you referred to three of its pages (31, 33 and 43), I consolidated into one the three separate {{cite journal}} templates you added, and replaced their "|page=" parameters with the appropriate {{rp}} templates, so that there is now one line in the References section (currently #6), instead of three.
I hope you won't mind that I also applied purely cosmetic changes inside the article, by reformatting all the {{cite}} parameters so that they aligned visually in order to make it easier to look at the content; for example, to remove any final punctuation marks that were located after the ref tags, since the guideline is that they should appear before them (see MOS:REFPUNCT).
I also applied the {{Reflist}} template in the References section, so they now appear in two columns.
I also restructured the existing content of the Career section into three separate paragraphs.
Finally, and although the latest review you found in Zackary Vernon's review seems to fit our requirement for independent sources, I would still err on the side of caution, and try to find some more if you can. To this end, you might find it useful to review Wikipedia's requirements, which include the all-important one on notability, which states:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
I hope this helped a little more, and also that you will be able to find other independent sources. Meanwhile, let's work together on extracting quotes from Zackary Vernon's review, and applying them into the article.
Thank you for your message; we are healthy and going about routine. I do appreciate your eye on this work. I am in the process of accessing an article in another journal, of which to date I have only seen the first page. I have hopes that it may give me information that will give the article additional support. The suggestion to use quotations is great, and I will set to that.
Thank you also for your changes to the templates, and your instructive explanation of these. Of course the paragraphing makes perfect sense!
This has all been extremely helpful. I will extract quotes this week and send them.
I have some direct quotes from the North Carolina Literary Review article by Zackary Vernon. The article is structured as an interview between Vernon and two NC writers, Terry Roberts and Ron Rash. So the quotes are TR speaking.
1. "...I was trying to explore the idea that the human condition has built into many more similarities than differences, and the deeper you go into the apparent variety of human experience, the more apparent that becomes." (p.34)
2. "... a lot of cultural and artistic expression is a form of memory; this is how we remember who we are." (p.34)
3. "There is a sense in which Appalachia...is a past-haunted land. In other words, we are very interested in how we got to this place and time." (p.42)
4. "...Appalachian writers write about the past because the past is very strong in the present." (p.43)
5. "One of the things that I address direct is how Southern Appalachians are viewed from the outside and how they are viewed from the inside, and when that outside view and that inside view come into conflict and what happens and who wins." (p.45)
Thank you for your suggestions on including these.
Thank you for collecting the above quotes, and please accept my apologies for not being clearer earlier: I hadn't realised that the paper you found was an interview of TR and RR and, in this case, the quotes you selected are of Roberts commenting on his own work, which therefore equates to quoting a primary source. The quotes I had in mind were to be from Vernon himself, as an academic.
While the Roberts quotes might still prove useful as potential content in your article, remember that our earlier reviewer (Ryan) had concluded:
"I think there's a good start to an article here if only you can supplement what you already have with independent sources.".
Although Zackary Vernon is clearly an academic, please beware that his interview of Roberts could be perceived as promotional, especially since they are both "local" to each other in North Carolina; thus, a hyper-critical Wikipedia editor could take the view that the two of them might even be colleagues in some way, perhaps as researchers in Appalachian Studies.
However, please consider looking at any critical conclusion(s) that Vernon might have reached (most likely near the end of his interview paper) where he might have emphasised an aspect of Roberts' body of work in a way that demonstrates TR's notability in terms of Vernon's academic perspective.
In addition to this, your goal remains to find additional independent sources, and it would be useful to find a couple of critical reviews from outside Roberts' local sphere of influence. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough in the field of American literature but, if you wish, I could ask one of our Wikipedia colleagues who is, to carry out another review of your efforts so far and to suggest a specific course of action for you to follow. Would that be helpful to you, Wendy?
I look forward to your reply, whenever convenient. Until then, please keep well and stay safe.
I hope you are well, and that you are enjoying the season's advance. I find I increasingly appreciate their unfolding, perhaps more noticeably during the present time of relative confinement.
Thank you for looking this over. I should have perhaps specified that the journal article was largely structured as an interview. When I found it, I considered that it was rather similar to one of two apparently acceptable sources in a published Wikipedia article about another NC writer, (an author interview in O Magazine, the Oprah Winfrey publication.)
Of course I do see that quotes of the subject's (even those in a published interview in a respected academic publication) qualify as primary sources. The article "Writing The Great War," focuses on two books published in the same year by Ron Rash and by Terry Roberts which both coincidentally centre on the scenario of the 1917 internment of German civilians in a resort hotel in the small, remote town of Hot Springs. The discussion is about the historical novel as a genre; and about World War I and the Internment Camp specifically. It is an analysis of the purpose of the writers, and does not purport to be a review of the books, in spite of being published in the journal, North Carolina Literary Review. A quote I could possibly use from Vernon himself, is that the TR novel, A Short Time to Stay Here examines through characters the situation in which "...the cultural chasm [that] is widening between the US and Germany, and between Southern Appalachia and the rest of America."
There exists another article that discusses the writing of TR, published in the Journal of American Studies, "Towards a post-appalachian sense of place." It is also by Zackary Vernon, and the preview states that it uses post-southern theory to analyze the work of three writers, including TR. I don't have the credentials for online access to the whole article and can only see the preview, but will try to trouble-shoot this through the university library in my area.
I do not doubt your advice, or Ryan's. Obviously I remain focused on seeing the article through to eventual publication. If you think that additional advice may be helpful, and you are willing to seek such, I would welcome another view of its readiness. I understand that I may very well have to place it in the deep-freeze on my laptop or decide to risk publication and deletion!
Again, Patrick, your support has been quite extraordinary and totally unexpected when I embarked on this project. I cannot thank you enough.
Thank you for your enquiry about the season's advance on this side of the pond. Yes, it has been very pleasant here, as I live within walking distance of a river and two beaches, accessible by road and coastal path; since the weather has been so nice here since March 21, I've been out for walks most days and feel extraordinarily fit as a result . As a retiree, I find it easy to remain confined, possibly owing to my reclusive, Wikipedian tendencies... But seriously, I hope that you are keeping well and staying safe also.
I think it is excellent that you are persevering with this project, because it seems to me that you are close to completion, if only you could find the required independent sources that would strengthen the evidence of TR's notability, as required by the Wikipedia guidelines.
Since you are happy for me to seek further advice, I will create a new section below, and contact our colleague Victoria, with whom I have communicated about Grace Hall Hemingway; although she might not respond immediately, she does return occasionally to reply to requests for advice. Until then, you have my very best wishes for success in your continued hunt for sources; please don't give up.
On a personal note, I am touched by your kind words regarding my participation to this, your very first article here. Please know that it is a joy to be of assistance, as I would like you to experience the sense of job satisfaction one derives from a successful publication here. By the way, have you visited your own talk page, lately?
Dear Victoria,
Following on from the post I left at your talk page a few minutes ago, please would you kindly take a look at the present draft article? It has already been reviewed once by our colleague Ryan on 13 May 2020 (see section above), who concluded:
"I think there's a good start to an article here if only you can supplement what you already have with independent sources.".
Since then, Wendy has been looking diligently for additional sources and I wonder if, after looking over her draft, you might be able to advise her on the best approaches—in your experience—for finding suitable sources required to establish the notability of living, American writers/educators, in order to satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines.
Thank you very much in advance, Victoria, for any guidance you could extend to Wendy, if/when you have the time.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exchange of messages posted between November 5, 2021 (20:23) and November 7, 2021 (21:43)
Dear Patrick, ,
I hope you are well. It has been a long time since I have been in contact with you. Firstly, I have made a small addendum to the page on Terry Roberts, as a new book was published this past summer. I note that I made an error inserting the reference, perhaps due to the length of time it has been since I practiced last. The error separates another sentence from itself, and I tried to decipher why this happened, but alas, could not. Would you mind taking a look?
Secondly, I would like to proceed to attempt publication. Would you be willing to explain how to do this?
Kind regards; Wendy Ikoku (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wendy, How wonderful to hear from you again! Yes, all is well here and I hope the same applies to you and yours. I did indeed notice that you added his fourth book a few days ago and was glad to help behind the scenes; thank you for your "thanks" via the button! As you requested, I have now fixed the small glitch you mentioned above, and also added a few parameters for the name of the reviewer and the full date of the review. If you wish to publish the article in its current form, then of course I will be happy to assist; in Wikipedia, the process of publishing a completed draft is called moving a page. I would suggest you read the step-by-step guidance shown here, and then let me know if you feel you could do this on your own. It's really very straightforward, but if you don't feel confident enough, then of course I'd be very happy to do it for you. I am sure you could do this, though, and you certainly deserve to experience the joy of publishing your first article, after all the work you've put into its development! Please let me know of your intent, and I'll look here again tomorrow, as it's 9:30pm here in Wales. All very best wishes, Wendy. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 21:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patrick, , We are all well, thankfully, and there will be a few more of us around the table at Thanksgiving, as our first grandchild will be here, as well as our younger son's fiancée. As to the draft Terry Roberts article, I think I shall try to follow the directions about moving a page, which I have printed so that I can have them at hand as I am working. I am not fully confident that I will not find a way to make an error, but I should like to have a go! Will you be able to check behind me, as you have been every step of the way? Best wishes. Wendy Ikoku (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Patrick, I made the move. However, I notice that there is an article about a Canadian politician of the same name. Do you have a suggestion about how to distinguish them? Thanks for your thoughts, Patrick. Wendy Ikoku (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wendy, Congratulations; it’s all done!! (Yay!!!... ) I applied a few changes after you moved the draft into mainspace, generally removing draft templates and adding various items of front and back matter, as well as adding templates to the talk page, all of which you can inspect through the history crumb trails. It’s heartening that your article has now also been successfully reviewed, which is most gratifying for you! I am sure other editors will continue to apply refinements, as we can obviously continue to do ourselves. For example, I noticed just now that refs #9 and #16 return errors (“404” and “No Results Found”, respectively); so, perhaps this is a task for you to consider addressing when you have a spare moment? Also, it would be nice to add Roberts’ birth year, if it can be determined via a reliable source. In any case, very well done, and thank you for all your hard work and for putting up with me from the beginning of this venture! Have a wonderful Thanksgiving celebration with your family, and please keep well, safe and joyful. With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patrick, , Thank you very much for the changes that you made, and for your support. How can I access the review? I will follow up on refs #9 and #16, it seems that they have been removed since I accessed them. I will also try to find the birth year information. With kind regards; Wendy Ikoku (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wendy, You’re most welcome; always a pleasure. On the subject of the “review”, all newly created articles are “patrolled” by volunteer editors who check them for conformity with Wikipedia guidelines. If you look at your watchlist, you should see an entry for today at:
10:15 (Page curation log) Polyamorph marked Terry Roberts (novelist and educator) as reviewed Tag: PageTriage
This is the only evidence you will see showing that the article was patrolled and flagged as conforming to the guidelines the patrolling editor considered during his/her review. I copied you on my message of thanks to the editor in this case. Thank you for looking into those other items, whenever convenient. Please keep well, and all best wishes to you! With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 14:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patrick, , Roberts' birth year (1956) is shown on the copyright page of the novels; the copyright page doesn't have a page number. Would this be a reliable source to use? Thanks. Kind regards. Wendy Ikoku (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wendy, Thank you for this useful pointer. Yes, we can assume that his editor(s) will have done due diligence on his biographical details. If we use Roman numerals, we could identify the page number and add that to the citation via the {{rp}} template. Please would you let me know the book title and page number to use, and I’ll update the article, unless you’d rather do it yourself? Thank you once again. Please keep well. With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 18:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Patrick, , I continue to be amazed at your constant vigilance and attention! The LOC copyright data of That Bright Land is on the page that I believe would be Roman numeral (iv), if every leaf in the book before pagination begins would indeed be part of the Roman numerals? Oh dear, the extent of what I don't know is great. Thanks for your help. Kind regards. Wendy Ikoku (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wendy, Thank you so much for the above details, which I have now used in the new ref tag after the "in 1956" you added in the "Early life and education" section. Thank you also for all the good work you did recently in expanding the content. This only leaves a new url to find for citation #10 (the old #9 that returns error '404'), and then we're done for now. Thank you once more for your wonderful cooperation throughout this project; it's been a real pleasure. All very best wishes. With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patrick, , Unfortunately I have been unable to get a new URL for the ASCD citation (#10, formerly #9). However, the statement it supported is also supported in the foreword by John Hattie of the book entitled The Better Writing Breakthrough. I hope I have included that reference correctly. I looked up how to cite a foreword or introduction in MLA citation, and tried to make it fit with the way Wikipedia citations work. You have been most kind and helpful throughout the process of creating this article, and working with you has been very pleasant. I have learned so much, and hope to be able to apply my knowledge to other articles at some point. With kind regards. Wendy Ikoku (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wendy, Thank you so much for replacing the dead url with the {{cite book}} template; it is most helpful that you had the book and could therefore use it as a source. I took the liberty of expanding the template to include the authors themselves, since forewords are deemed "contributions" and I therefore used the suggested parameters. And here we finally are: no more to do! Thank you for your kind words, Wendy, and please feel free to contact me again if you require assistance in some future project here at the Wiki. Until then, please keep well, safe and joyful. With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 21:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
