User talk:Factsnfigurestoo

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Sniegowski has been accepted

Paul Sniegowski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Super, thanks! Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeffrey Barrick (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ktkvtsh was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jeffrey Barrick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking at my article. However, I am confused because I carefully cited external references to substantiate all points. The subject leads a major experiment with extensive coverage on Wikipedia and in the news -- as one example, the leading journal science Nature reported when Barrick took over the experiment (linked in my entry). The subject himself has authored important software used by many groups (cited in my entry) and authored many highly cited papers in Science, Nature, PNAS, etc. I didn't tout the fact, but merely cited those papers that are relevant to Barrick's important discoveries, which I describe in the entry in neutral, scientific terms with links to relevant references. The subject has also won awards and honors, including an NSF CAREER Award and others. The only substantive change I could see making would be to reduce the number of papers noted in the "Selected works" section and perhaps removing a few of the lesser known awards. Would that be something you would advise? Again, thanks for looking over this and, I hope, providing concrete advice. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Factsnfigurestoo! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Awards can be listed, but unless awards are so significant that those are subjects of Wikipedia articles (Nobel, etc.), do not contribute to establishing Wikipedia notability. See WP:NACADEMIC for guidance. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The notability of the subject Barrick is justified by the many highly cited and high impact papers he has published that address demonstrably important topics, ones for which there are substantive Wikipedia pages. That's the main currency of notability in science. If Wikipedia "rules" don't reflect that fact, then perhaps it needs to reconsider amd update things.

In my opinion, it's counter-productive that Wikipedia has entries for so many inconsequential people in sports, politics, etc, while limiting scientists -- practitioners of one of the most objective human activities. It's like only having sports figures who've played on professional all-star teams or won MVP awards. And it's not as though the weight of a volume and/or paper is limiting, either. Students find their way to scientists' pages to learn about the science they've done, find references, etc. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I read over the comments here, and I agree: the article reads like a resume. You said that an article in Nature talks about his work, but I had to look really hard for that citation: in the version that I'm looking at it's number 25 of the references, and most of the other references are faculty pages and articles BY the subject. That's why it looks like a resume: it used the subject's articles to cite content about the subject, and that's not how Wikipedia works. That some dumb wrestler or corrupt politician is more easily written up than a scientist is unfortunate, but that's because we base our content on SECONDARY sourcing. That's what you need to establish notability: articles about the subject. Oh, listing the subject's articles (on top of using them in the references), that's also resume writing. If you want to list books, go ahead, because typically books will have been reviewed in professional journals, but that does not apply to articles. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeffrey Barrick (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drmies was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jeffrey Barrick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drmies (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done, at least for now. Here and on the Teahouse page (where many otyhers weighed in) I've explained my position and bent over backwards to accomodate suggestions. All for naught. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Not for naught. I am convinced he is notable, but your understanding of what notability means isn't quite the same as the meaning of notability in the context of an encyclopedia. In this case, there are two guidelines, both of which the community here considers non-negotiable, and you would do well to read them thoroughly if you haven't already:

• Wikipedia:Notability requires, basically, that multiple sources meet the criteria in WP:Golden Rule.
• Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are additional guidelines specific to academics, who may not have significant coverage of their biography in secondary independent sources. This guideline recognizes that the notability of a scientist depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study, specifying criteria for assessing notability.

With those two guidelines in mind, if you can answer these questions, then that's a strong case for publishing the article:

1. What three sources, which are reliable and independent of Barrick, provide significant coverage of him? If they can be identified, then he meets Wikipedia's general notability requirements. (Unfortunately, as you observed, this guideline also results in Wikipedia having far too many articles about pop-culture subjects, because that's what the mainstream media reports on.)
2. If there are no such sources, then what sources, which are reliable and independent of Barrick, demonstrate any of the following about his work?
   1. Significant impact in his scholarly discipline
   2. Highly prestigious academic awards or honors at a national or international level
   3. Election to a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association
   4. His work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions
   5. He has a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement
   6. The highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society
   7. Substantial impact outside academia
   8. Head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal

Points 1 and possibly 4 and 6 may apply, I think. I thought the article was greatly improved over the past couple of days, to the point of being worthy of publishing before it was recently declined. Maybe there are still some improvements that can be made.

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes for detailed suggestions on how to demonstrate meeting any of those criteria listed above. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued useful input, Anachronist. I'll see what else I can find and marshall ...

The Academics page you cite specifies "meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Isn't an exceptionally high h-index (now ref [8]), reflecting numerous highly cited papers, reliable, independent, and compelling evidence of the following?

"1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

The current draft entry also has major new items in Nature (now ref [1]) and a New Scientist article (popular science source for the public, now ref [16]). Also included are a detailed UT news article (ref [21]) as well as a Cal Academy of Science news article (ref [14]) about Barrick's research that, unfortunately, don't feature him prominently in their writeups. But I'll keep digging for similar items that feature Barrick in particular.

I think his work with iGEM (ref [7]) and software featured at NIH (ref [10] are relevant to criterion 4, but maybe too tangential and/or hard to explain. Do you think I should try to elaborate on those? But isn't just one criterion required? And how can anyone knowledgeable of scholarly impact question Barrick's exceptional h-index?

Thanks again. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's a good start. I cannot see the Nature article because it's behind a paywall, so it may be helpful to quote a relevant passage within the citation (the citation template has a parameter for quoting). The New Scientist' article also is good for supporting that #1 criterion. Unfortunately, Science News (one of my favorite magazines) doesn't mention Barrick at all, and the UT article isn't independent of him, because he works there.

I'm also wondering if #5 or #6 might be applicable to his directorship at LTEE. It's kind of like a "named chair" position on the faculty, no? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks yet again, Anachronist.

The entry now cites only 4 of Barrick's published papers, while 8 external links are to news articles (NY Times, New Scientist) and scientific commentaries (Nature, Science, etc) that individually and collectively attest to the importance and newsworthiness of the subject and his works. I've quoted from a few of those articles and commentaries directly in the entry to make clear the newsworthiness of the work.

I guess I could remove 3 of the 4 remaining links to the subject's papers -- the other is a very recent study (2024), but it's undoubtedly an important contribution. Should I remove the other 3? (It seems kind of silly to remove such useful links, but what do I know.)

And should I remove links to the subject's university and department? That's the standard place for facts like dates of hiring and promotion. Hardly controversial, but some here seem to want every sentence referenced, and you won't find other news items about these basic facts.

Thanks for your further advice. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Factsnfigurestoo, I must say the article is reading a lot better now following your changes. No need to remove links to the subject's university and department, that material is all relevant. One very minor issue, in "Honors" you state, "In 2016, he received a CAREER Award from the NSF." My understanding (from a brief look at the cited reference) is that was an award (=grant) for work to be done over an upcoming 5-year period, which is different from the sense I feel would belong in this section, which I would take to mean a post-activity recognition (the xyz award or whatever) for some notable piece of work already completed (in other words, a medal or piece of paper/presentation or similar), which would be an "Honor" while a grant/financial award is just normal business for a researcher wishing to get his or her work funded. However if you disagree with me that is fine... Maybe time to resubmit and see what happens :) Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony 1212 and Anachronist.

Should I resubmit, Drmies? Or delete the CAREER award? (If I do that, I'll remove the Honors section and incorporate the remaining sentence and award link in the Research section.) Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Well it's certainly much better: it looks much more like a biography. I don't really have an opinion on that CAREER thing and at any rate it's a small thing in a much larger article. That "accompanying comment" is a neat trick--as long as the man's work is verified by others, I think we're good. What you need to keep in mind is that claims like "an important contribution" are not self-evident, not even if the journal is top-notch, and thus, IMO, need secondary sourcing: reviews are best, obviously. Fun fact: I just saw that a top-notch reviewer published a review of my top-notch book in a top-notch journal, and managed to misspell my name. Keep proofreading! Sure, go ahead and submit. Ah I don't care, Anachronist--it should be good enough to go straight to mainspace, no? Drmies (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. I kept proofreading, caught a typo, and improved a sentence or two.

In light of a comment from Tony 1212, I removed the CAREER award, moved the paper that won the award into the Research section, and eliminated the Honors section. (However, I wouldn't be surprised if the subject gets major awards some day that will require that section.)

If Anachronist agrees, I'll go ahead and resubmit the entry.

Thanks all. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)