"

, you are very much on the right track now. A few things you'll want to adjust:
If you have more sources that are also strong, especially ones that talk a little more about her overall career rather than just her books, that would help flesh out the depiction of her.
When you have a list of items, like works or links, make sure to ""bullet"" each item using a ""*"", just like I'm doing here. And you needn't leave blank lines between list items when you bullet.
Carefully skim through and remove *anything* that is even slightly subjective praise that's not directly sourced to a review/commentator. That is, if the NYT says she's ""splendiferous"" you can mention that, mention NYT said it, and cite it. But you absolutely cannot refer to her as ""renowned"", ""pathbreaking"", ""stellar"", ""imaginative"" etc in Wikipedia's own voice.
This would likely pass just as it is, but there's no harm and much benefit to continuing to beef it up a little. Also, if her birth year is public record (i.e. mentioned on some university site, news article, etc., not by digging in city archives) then please include that next to her name.
Nice work, I think you're really getting the hang of this now. I like to avoid reviewing the same article multiple times when it's this close to passing, so I'll wait until another reviewer puts fresh eyes on it.   "