Talk:Fiona Wright

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: Arts and Entertainment

	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 arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Literature Low‑importance

	Australia portal Fiona Wright is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unreliable references?

Some listed references do not seem to be reliable. Sources such as this or this are product listing and not independent of the subject. This source has no editorial and doesn't seem to be reliable. I tagged the page with unreliable sources so any other editor can improve it. --Luke J.^talk 15:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiahimedluke: I don't follow why you claim that the "Best Australian Writing" or "Black in books" references are unreliable. They are primary sources, which is not ideal, but that is a different matter from being unreliable: primary sources are acceptable to support some types of statements (see WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") The statements which these refs support concern Wright's work being inclued in these specific poetry collections, which is clearly stated in both sources. You also claim that those sources are not independent of the subject, which is not apparent and the source appears to meet the req;uirements of WP:INDEPENDENT, so what is your reasoning for this claim? Apart from that, it leaves just one source you are challenging, and that would be better handled by placing a {{Better source}} tag inline. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]