Talk:Sarah Dessen

this book is really hard to write a 15 page paper on because it doesnt have cliff's notes or sparknotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.192.107 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

wow Haha at above comment. Anyway, this page needs more info about the awards Dessen won for her work. There are a lot of them.  Chantessy  16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Sarah-dessen-headshot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sarah-dessen-headshot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Character Lists

Im not 100 percent sure about character analysis and if there is a fine line between my interpretation and the basic structures of the characters, but the characters lists need to be a little better than one sentence basic not quite correctly done. Its a good star but this book deserves more than the outline. is there a possibility for it or is it pushing bias guidelines? Brialexengli (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs more

There are a few things that could use some work on this page like the citations that are not available anymore and as the previous person said the one line in the character list. Crwhiting94 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Themes & writing style and Bibliography sections

The Themes & writing style section seems to be mostly unqualified praise for the author, and I'm not entirely sure how it's meant to give us more information about her. "Gragert asked Dessen about the style she uses in some of her books, otherwise known as "effortless perfection"" in particular stands out; it might be a description of the author's characters' attempts at perfectionism, but it reads very much as if the article is calling Dessen's books effortlessly perfect, which is not particularly informative or professional.

Most of this section is a summary of a single article titled "I interviewed author Sarah Dessen, the woman who made me want to read and write". For obvious reasons, I am skeptical of this article as a source for anything but bare facts. I'd prefer to pare this section down to the first paragraph (if anyone can find a citation for it), a single sentence summarizing the themes of perfectionism, and a "Dessen exercises and reads in her free time as anxiety coping mechanisms" or something similar.

The Bibliography section, meanwhile, looks as if it was written by a fan club or the author's publisher. Particularly since every single one of these books seems to have their own article, there seems to be to be no need for these chatty advertising blurbs. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll remove the summaries and leave it as names and dates, the standard formatting for bibliographies here.206.71.224.226 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Steady now. We all know what happens to people who cross Sarah.2A02:C7F:5E4B:1F00:4D8D:5447:A6DC:6A21 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 308 Advanced Composition

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MadisonSmith102325 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MadisonSmith102325 (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Clarity and Neutrality

There needs to be more of an academic tone. The neutral tone that wikipedia values feels like it has been lost. I want to rewrite some of the sections to bring the neutrality back, and also fix some of the citations that no longer exist. MadisonSmith102325 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Let me know if I can help or look over anything. Marquardtika (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)