Maybe someone can help me understand where I&#39;m going astray here.<div><br></div><div>I wrote an article about one of my favorite comic book artists of the 1940s, a woman named Lily Renée.  I first posted it to the Women in Comics wikia I run (<a href="http://womenincomics.wikia.com/wiki/Lily_Ren%C3%A9e">http://womenincomics.wikia.com/</a>) before deciding it was good and notable enough to put on Wikipedia proper (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Ren%C3%A9e">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Renée</a>)</div>
<div><br></div><div>I went to check on it recently and found it has been flagged with this notice:</div><div><br></div><div>&quot;This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.&quot;</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now, I&#39;m the first to admit I probably could have cited it better, though all the information I wrote came from the two interviews I did cite.  But I&#39;m really not seeing how it is &quot;written like a personal reflection or essay&quot;, as they define it, i.e. it has no primary research, she is not a &quot;personal invention&quot;, it does not state my &quot;feelings&quot; on the topic, nor is it a &quot;discussion forum&quot;. (viz: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PUBLISHER">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PUBLISHER</a>)</div>
<div><br></div><div>It IS however written in &quot;summary&quot; style, and uses proper formal language (viz: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_style#Information_style_and_tone">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_style#Information_style_and_tone</a>)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Do you think whoever flagged it really meant it just needs to be cited better, or is there something I&#39;m not seeing?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks, </div><div>Alexa</div>