Talk:Gail Godwin

Gail Godwin has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 28, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 18, 2023.

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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 supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Women writers Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

CorporateM (talk · contribs) has been paid by Gail Godwin. See Talk:Gail Godwin/Draft

loveseat

The title loveseat is on a poster of a little girl and boy sitting on a loveseat, Its victorian style, dark purple velvet and early american stained wood. Dark and light blue clothes for the children. And Gail Goodwin signed it. I can not believe that is not a book of gail goodwins. I know the story good. Lets write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.5.149 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing and original research

Mr. Neufeld, you appear to be closely connected to this person and "the editor of the journals of Gail Godwin." What you had published here amounts to what we refer to original research. While we appreciate your expertise, we don't allow folks to publish their own research on wikipedia and strongly discourage folks editing in areas where they have a conflict of interest. Your essay on her contribution to literature has been removed. If you wish to contribute to this article, may I suggest you post your ideas here and let someone less involved figure out if it makes sense to add to the article? Thank you. The Dissident Aggressor 21:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Neufield. Instead of persisting in restoring the version of the article you wrote, please take some time to address these issues presented here. It would be unfortunate to have to request page protection and/or blocking you from editing. The Dissident Aggressor 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a PR Article?

I just happened across this article. It doesn't seem to have much criticism of this noted hack. Indeed, the shameless copying of Daphne du Maurier's most famous opening is highlit in the article without any critical comment. What's going on? RomanSpa (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes RomanSpa, I agree. It was largely written by a WP:SPA that's a fanboy of hers. See discussion above. The Dissident Aggressor 21:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, should have read that earlier. Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I do feel that this article seems unbalanced. Unfortunately I don't know anything about this area, so can't make a useful contribution myself, but good luck in improving it! RomanSpa (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the book report / PR / wall of unreferenced text that was largely WP:OR. I think this is much better now with still room for improvement. The Dissident Aggressor 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi All. I have a COI with Gail Godwin and would like to bring this page up to Good Article standards, making it more representative of some of the better works[1] from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers. I've spent some time at the local university library, which had a massive volume of source material, including newspaper clippings from the pre-internet era of the '70s and '80s in the Special Collections department. I was surprised that the page was so derelict given the volume of source material available, but I do see that much of it is difficult to access.

I am not affiliated with anyone that edited the article previously. I'll be doing research and working on some draft material offline for a while, but I wanted to start off by cleaning up some of the promotion, per WP:BLPAWARDS. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Just checking:

Are you a paid editor on this?
If so, you need to declare your employer (who is paying you?), the client (presumably Gail Godwin; the employer and client might be one-and-the-same here) and your affiliations on this. I'm not sure who the affiliations are of course, but they might include the publisher, GG's agent, or any PR firm that you and the employer are both working for. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am sponsored by Gail Godwin. No, I do not have an affiliation with her publisher or a PR firm, or anything like that. CorporateM (Talk) 22:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Requesting an editor consider my work at Talk:Gail_Godwin/Draft as a proposed replacement for the current article. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 03:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, cherry-picking phrases like Godwin has a "pesky resistance to categorisation" from positive press by a paid editor isn't really ethical. The reception section is all positive. Where's the neutrality? How much were you paid? The Dissident Aggressor 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The disclosure mandated by the terms of use does not include how much someone was paid. I don't see why it should, either. It's not exactly outing to request personal information of this sort, but I consider it inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it isn't required, doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) be asked. How you think it is inappropriate is beyond my comprehension. The Dissident Aggressor 19:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead; why we would want to wait another 15 years for a real biography, because of coi hysteria? the snark is really hilarious: deletionists can certainly delete those parts they think are too much; certainly neither they, nor anyone else has taken the time to write as well here. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I didn't realize it took this much work and this much time to improve an article where so-called COI is involved. I am about to copy and paste the paid editor's draft over the current article. It's an improvement, for sure. If anyone sees a violation of Core Content Policies I suggest you ask the paid editor to fix it. Since they're getting paid, they may as well do our volunteer work for us too. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of a wholesale cut/paste, we do incremental improvements, like is customary? The Dissident Aggressor 19:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just saw this DissidentAggressor. This page is not on my watchlist, please {ping} me if you want to talk about stuff. I was going to ask CorporateM to do the same thing you suggested - fix it slowly-slowly - which is the way I do stuff around here (explain my edits line by line, practically). But "upon closer inspection", as we say in the biz, the old article was beyond easy tweaking. For me, anyway. And it's easier, I thought, for Wikipedians to make the article better, now that CorporateM is fully responsible for keeping it up to Wikipedia's standards of excellence. I don't mind asking him to do my job. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ad flag by LeoRomero (12.4) removed by LeoRomero (12.11)

Mabuhay! No edits since I copy-pasted the paid draft to replace the old Article except for the edits I suggested to the Pro, and tweaks by Creds and Bots. Removing the ad flag now. - Thanks; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Addendum 1": Diff of 2 steps to raise and lower Ad flag Certified True & Correct, Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working with Professional Editors to improve Wikipedia- 5 not-so-hard steps - Step 6

Hi CorporateM, Now about these quality ratings: What's it take get from Cs to Bs? - Mabuhay! - Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can upgrade it to B class, but usually good etiquette is to wait for someone that has not been involved in the article to rate it independently. In my case, I almost always go through the GA process and so I have nominated it for a GA review since it seems stable. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gail Godwin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You may notice that most of the best citations are in offline print sources. If you need to take a look at any of them, I can scan them and provide digital copies by email. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 20:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Hi! Found time for this. Jotting down my comments:

Lead

We typically exclude citations from the lead. Make sure that you have not excluded any fact of the lead from the main text. The citations should support everything in the main text.

DoneCorporateM (Talk) 10:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two books in particular that she wrote in the 1980s I think it would be better to say "In particular, two books written by her ". (1980s is redundant as you have included years for the books.)

DoneCorporateM (Talk) 10:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family

Weaverville, NC and then to Asheville, NC Repetition of "NC". Is its mention needed?

Done CorporateM (Talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's grandmother filled the traditional role of a mother, cleaning, cooking and sewing I think this could be shortened to a few words.
while her mother Kathleen "her mother" is redundant.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a Bachelor's and master's "b" of bachelor is in lower case in the lead but not here. Needs consistency.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more so than her grandmother's work as a homemaker We already know her grandmother's work.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At age nine "age" is redundant. Or write "Aged nine"

Done CorporateM (Talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 1948 Godwin's mother Kathleen married a World War II veteran named Frank Cole Reword as "In 1948 Kathleen married Frank Cole, a World War II veteran"

Done CorporateM (Talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Kathleen continued writing after having a second child, Godwin was further inspired to pursue writing by her mother's determination for it Reword as "Godwin was further inspired by her mother's determination to continue writing after having a second child."

Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Say Kathleen instead of Godwin's mother, we know who she is.

I prefer to use terms interchangeably to give the text more variety, but will change it if you feel strongly CorporateM (Talk) 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen eventually stopped writing. As Cole's salary increased and he was able to support the family, Godwin's mother focused on being a wife and homemaker Combine these lines.

Done 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Godwin had no relationship with her father, Mose Godwin No need to name him again

Done CorporateM (Talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rest

Under Recent works, Godwin's published works have include 14 novels. Is there an error here?

I changed "include" -> "included" 14 novels. Wasn't sure if that's what you meant, or if there was a reason to suspect the number was wrong. CorporateM (Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under Themes, a woman's pursuit of an artistic an career and the role of religious faith Is there an error here?

Done Ewww, thanks for catching that. I've fixed it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under Early works, Lihong Xie comments that Has Xie been introduced earlier with an idea of his/her background?

Done Yes, about four paragraphs up in the prior section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Godwin's recent image (showing her typing) should go into the infobox, where it would look better.

That image is from 1983; let me ask her if we can get a more recent photo. She mentioned employing the work of a photographer soon. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some publications such as The Boston Globe and The Washington Post could be linked.

Done I went through the whole thing adding wikilinks wherever possible. CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources, they look fine and I do not feel the need to check them in the form you offered. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio detected, prose well-written in the majority of the article. Great job! These issues resolved, I would be glad to promote this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All the issues are resolved now. I am glad to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]