Talk:Annette Carson

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

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

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Thank you for your comments. However, it may be more appropriate if this article was edited by an editor resident in the UK. Can you please arrange for this? Carson is notable for three reasons:

1. as an author of a number of non-fiction books;
2. for her work on the exhumation and reburial of Richard III;
3. her advocacy work where she single handedly took on the UK Government for at least five years in the UK domestic courts, before joining with a number of others for another three years in the European Courts. All of this is laid out in great detail in the citations.

As you can see, this draft is more UK and Europe centric, rather than American, and hence why it would be more appropriate if it was edited in the UK.

These are the " third-party independent reliable sources" that I have used:

UK Human Rights Blog. 1 Crown Office Row barristers' - Barristers represent the Crown and defendants in High Courts and above in the UK;
BAIL II. (this is equivalent to Lexis/Nexus in the US);
British Age Pensioner Alliance (Australia) - this group documented the progress in the Carson v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions;
Quadrant Books; First Edition (1984).
FAI Aerobatics Commission.
Flight Unlimited. Müller & Carson, High Wycombe - This is the aviation industry's "bible"
Aerospace. Royal Aeronautical Society - third party reliable source
Pilot - quality, aviation industry magazine
Pen and Sword Books.
Encyclopaedia Britannica - similar to Wikipedia

If there are some inappropriate citations, then please identify which ones they are. The Wikipedia defined peacock word "landmark" has been removed. Bibliography - All references to The Maligned King have been grouped together.

Looking at other Wikipedia pages, how did these pages get through the editing process? William C. Alexander
Rachel_Cruze - numerous citations to magazines, and how is this for self promotion ""...Rachel says she and her husband, Winston, ... "We work, give, save, and spend in a way that's already setting up a legacy ... monthly budget, plan for big expenses, ... debt-free living.", James Altucher - note all the references to magazines such as McLeans
Judith H. Dobrzynski - what makes this person notable? Note all of the citations to the New York Times

I found these in ten minutes. If I was to conduct a more thorough review, I would find numerous Wikipedia articles on non-fiction writers written in the same style as I have. Why is my article being held to a higher standard?

The Retiree (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably notable as n author. Concentrate on that, focusing on substantial reviews of hee published works in third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements .
Please follow our standard style,. Do not use boldface. Don't repeat.
In giving the bibliography, combine different editions of the same work .
Her adovcacy work may or may not be notable, but it's not as easy to show this as to show her notability as an author, so do not emphasise it. DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]