Talk:Jacqueline Ayer

	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 articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 1 July 2017 by reviewer Shadowowl (talk · contribs).

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

Another solid reference

Recent article in The Guardian. Hannah Booth, "The groundbreaking children’s books that drew on life in Thailand", The Guardian, 2017-06-18.

I'd work on this article but as I understand the conflict of interest policy, I probably am not the one who should do this, since the Ayers are family friends. - Jmabel | Talk 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=787878932#Draft:Jacqueline_Ayer, I am going to feel free to clean up the citations. - Jmabel | Talk 03:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made my pass through this. I couldn't find citations for everything that was originally in it, but I could cite for the bulk of it, and everything I could check was accurate, so I find no reason to doubt the handful of statements for which I could not find sources.
This had been rejected about 2 weeks ago for supposedly not meeting Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. I actually think that was erroneous (I'm an admin, by the way). As it indicates at that link, there are only four types of statements that absolutely require inline citation, and as far as I can tell none of those four types of statements are in this article at all. In any event, I have tremendously improved the citation, and think this should be moved to the main article space. Clearly notability is established, and, as I said the original grounds for rejection appears to me to have been erroneous. Just in case there are specifics on that -- some specific statement in the article that meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Inline citation#When you must use inline citations and still isn't cited, I'm pinging the person who rejected it (@Shadowowl:); please, point out what statement is at issue, and I will either find a citation for it or remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 23:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment that I rejected it, it contained no inline citations. Now it does contain inline citations, and can be accepted. -- » Shadowowl | talk 06:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]