This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
I'm not comfortable using the BGSU page as a primary citation as I am the one who wrote it and I helped create this page, but if others are okay with it that's fine. Sammidown (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
While it's good to disclose, I think that BGSU qualifies as intellectually independent _of the subject_. It's a valid and worthwhile source for this article. Also, it is completely ok to use print sources--so for example perhaps there's a monograph on the collection which exists only in print etc. If I had time to go through this article I'd probably focus on removing things that aren't directly relevant and perhaps removing some of the adjectives. I think it's well written but many Wikipedians will prefer it to be more focused and less narrative in structure. (TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looking deeper, it looks like that first publisher (McFadden) may have misrepresented the date? Either way, it seems muddy enough that we should keep it simple.Sammidown (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply