Talk:Linda Doyle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Doyle lecturing in 2021
Doyle lecturing in 2021

5x expanded by SeoR (talk) after creation by Antiqueight (talk). Nominated by SeoR (talk) at 12:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I shall review this. Schwede66 20:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five-time expansion has been exceeded by 11 bytes (well done for precision). There are some content issues, though. An unreferenced date of birth is an absolute no-no for a BLP; please find a source or delete. Yes, provosts get appointed for a decade but in the article, it must say "1 August 2021 – present" and not give a date in 2031 as that violates WP:CRYSTAL (she might not live that long for a start). We don't display articles on the mainpage with [citation needed] tags so please delete the info or provide a source (and if you delete it, I'll still pass it as "long enough" under WP:IAR). Otherwise, it's adequately sourced. Provost is not a proper noun so has to have lower case as per MOS:JOBTITLES (e.g. in the hook, where I have changed it; please change in the article as needed). Similarly, drop caps for "Vice-President" and "Dean" etc. I had not heard of STEAM and thought it was a spelling mistake of STEM; maybe provide the unabbreviated name in parentheses. The phrase "also including" sounds a bit clumsy and given we have three women, may use "alongside" instead. Under "Publications", it might pay to use a more common citation style than what's shown here; have a look at the section "Examples" of parenthetical referencing. Earwig is happy. The hook is fine. The photo is suitably licensed. QPQ has been done. Schwede66 22:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Schwede66 and thanks for taking the case. The length is not quite as precise, sadly :-) - DYKCheck does not count bulleted text, so those lines take it a bit further over the line. The DoB pre-exists the expansion so I will double-check the original refs (should have done that before, sorry), but if no backing, I will simply remove it for now. Fair point re. term end date. I think there is one CN, will deal with that - the claim is question is widely made but if no clear backing, out it comes. Trinity always spells Provost in the context of the specific ancient office of Provost of TCD with a capital, but no problem to decap. On STEAM, as you saw, the encyclopedia has an article, but indeed it is much more obscure than STEM, so I will expand it. And I'll be on the Publications point too. It's getting late here, so all will be dealt with by tomorrow. SeoR (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SeoR, bulleted text does not count, just so you know. Have a look at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines (A2) and the definition of readable prose at WP:RPS. Schwede66 22:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schwede66, many thanks for that! I did not recall it as an absolute ban, only that certain aspects did not count, for clear reasons - I will keep this in mind. I have done an initial run, addressing many of the points, and will return in the morning to sweep through and finalise. SeoR (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Schwede66, all done, I think - and thanks for the advice, the article reads better now. SeoR (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking splendid; good to go. Schwede66 02:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SeoR: looks like the third paragraph of "Academic work" and the first paragraph of "Provostship" need citations—could that be cleared up before I promote? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Theleekycauldron, good to meet again. Sure, will sort that. I'm sure all paras were cited at time of submission, and thorough review by Schwede66, but there have been works by "divers hands" on this - all very welcome, of course - and there may have been slippage. I'm on it within the hour. SeoR (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theleekycauldron, I suggest this meets rule D2 just fine. More thorough referencing is always appreciated (SeoR, go for it if you wish) but the DYK hurdle has been cleared. Schwede66 07:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks both. I had understood that the standard was one good cite per paragraph, as a minimum, but I am always happy to maximise quality, and I have now added to the coverage for the noted paragraphs. So now it is in your hands for promotion, and consideration of the picture option. SeoR (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Queue 5  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science Gallery Dublin[edit]

Nice biog., guys. And fair play for mentioning the gallery. But you may need to put some context, as it has actually generated real anger in Dublin and there are reasons why people point at the new Provost (you really should capitalize the title):
1) the idea to close seemed to come out of nowhere, just months into the professor's term, and this is someone who claims to be "into" science-to-public engagement and encouragement of young people to get into STEM (and maybe this new STEAM). At least she could have told her finance people "hang on, new in the chair, it just reopened, give it six months and come back with ideas."
2) the "losses" it makes are trivial in the context of Trinner's budget, and Trinity is not a commercial enterprise.
3) it provided a great opportunity for both junior academics, as "moderator-guides," and seniors, and nothing is proposed instead. Luke O'Neill and Aoife McLysaght are always mentioned but there were many others whose profile and skills were boosted by the gallery.
4) it already tried to do something Prof Doyle claims to believe in, merging science and art. I was there for the opening show, and it was something like "stars and optical effects," genuinely impressive.
5) the gallery was one of a dozen items quoted as projects during Trinity's massive fundraising of a couple of years ago, and some of us gave partly because of that. Where's the money gone?
6) no new proposal for outreach was made, even as a stop-gap. And the news came in the same month that the Childrens' Science Museum, due for the NCH / Iveagh Gardens site, saw its planning permission be allowed to expire.
7) at the least there should have been a survey of visitors, a campus consultation, advance discussions with the government (not hasty ones after the bomb went off), a few calls to other colleges to see if someone progressive, say TUD or DCU, would share. None of that happened, and that's a failure of leadership. Even now, not much of that has happened. How hard would it be to run some surveys and focus groups, as academic projects maybe.
8) the communication. Dire, "Patrick the Hermit" all over again. Hide in House One (No. 1 Grafton Street), say nothing. Nothing on Twitter, even when TCD professors and donors were commenting, no answer to journalists at the Business Post or Times, nothing.
This may not all be useable and maybe some of it belongs more on the article of the gallery, but you'll find most of these points in the Irish media, at least. 194.186.188.228 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 91.193.177.166 (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Note: the second IP editor broke a large paragraph into numbered sections. TSventon (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The points - a two-signature comment is unusual - are noted but it has to be said that indeed many of these points might better feed into the Science Gallery article. I would hope that the matter of the closure is well-addressed over there, and mentioned clearly here. SeoR (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the benefit of some time to think, I have noted your point 5. Point 1 would be editorial / speculation on a person's position, points 2,3 and 8 are comment, the art-science aspect at 4 is perhaps worth a brief mention, as it aligns with other aspects of the bio, and points 6-7 are suggestions - if they are done, or documented as rejected, they might become something to record (more likely in the Gallery article). To some extent, your broad thrust is reflected in the comment by Trinity's University Times, which is captured. Thank you for engaging with the article's development. For full clarity, I add that on checking sources, Science Gallery Dublin was one of 18 projects headlined within the Inspiring Generations fundraiser, not 12 - but it's still notable, given the 400 million euro scale of that campaign, and that the losses which allegedly led to closure were less than 600,000 per annum, and only in 2019-2021, the years of the fundraiser. SeoR (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SeoR, I have clarified which IP editor wrote what. For what it is worth: 1 Doyle was Dean of research from 2018 to 2020 so probably was aware of Trinity's financial position then. It is quite common for new CEOs to take unpopular decisions at the start of their term, the so called big bath. 2 Trinity's losses due to Covid in 2019-2020 were €25.6m according to University Times, which is not trivial. TSventon (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon - I recall meeting on a Irish academia Talk page before, glad to see you here. I think those are two very good points as to why the closure might be happening, though I'm surprised that such a high-profile target, with a rather small financial impact, was chosen, especially as it got seriously bad PR / donor feedback. But I can only imagine how much politics there is inside the decision-making bodies of such an institution. I think here on the encyclopedia we can only reflect the clearest points, and most of what the folks above wrote is really more about the Gallery than the new Provost, or is not concluded, or is opinion. But it's important to review. What I would really like is more about what Prof. Doyle did academically, and with this Connect centre. I hope someone can supply more, and on which publications are most pertinent. A second picture, maybe in an earlier stage, at this OMG or a CTVR or Connect, would be nice. I'm digging for media / appearances over coffee now. SeoR (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SeoR - yes, I am only an occasional visitor to Irish education pages, but thought your name was familiar. Hopefully a more rounded picture of Doyle's performance as Provost will emege in time. You probably saw an interview in the Examiner about education funding. I also had a look at Trinity's 2020 accounts, which show a "deficit before other gains and losses" for each of the last five years, which could be a problem. TSventon (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, just to say that I did since read the accounts - and I'm familiar with the broader theme, as a donor to some universities (just once to TCD; not one of my colleges, though they had a nice, near-unique, Masters in Information Systems course). So yes, the basic problem for all Irish colleges is lack of reliable funding (on top of having tiny "endowments", as with most European institutions), and this constrains all university leaders. And then, even when funding looks OK, departments will fight ferociously for their corner, and a non-departmental project is not going to be prioritised. I suspect the problems the new Provost faced started when the original leads for the Science Gallery moved on (the director to Germany, the founding chair to VC and other projects) without a new power figure taking the helm. Also, the powers of an Irish university head are rather constrained, which also limits some disasters. A pity re. the Gallery, but anyway, I think the matter is adequately or better covered with regard to this article. SeoR (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover of Arts and Science[edit]

This is a major theme in the prof's work, and you might want to expand on it. More at https://lindadoyle.ie/, on the OMG page (the name is not as funny as the abbreviation), but also try the Times.

Another topic, might be worth mentioning some of the major telecoms and IT companies Doyle worked or researched with, for sure Bell Labs and Intel, probably Nokia, Ericsson, Cisco too. 194.186.188.228 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points. The working group should definitely have cover, and perhaps, if I can find a source, and clarity on what it was or is, also the Dept. of Ultimology. Likewise major industry partners could be sampled. The limitation is that while non-independent sources can contribute, I would really like to have some external coverage to refer to also. Any pointers very welconme. SeoR (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patents[edit]

I'd like to take this article to Good Article eventually. As a step towards more complete cover, any information on patents would be welcome, as well as further photography, and more on the early academic career. SeoR (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linda_Doyle&oldid=1207028524"