Talk:Mary Frances Linder Fitzpatrick

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary Frances Linder Fitzpatrick article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 9 November 2023 by reviewer WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about a botanist or someone who contributed to the field of botany.

United States: Iowa Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Editing

Hi Wapsie Crossing - I wanted to kind of explain what I'm doing editing-wise. One of the big issues I'm running into is the writing style. It's well written, but it's written from more of a historian point of view as opposed to how Wikipedia handles things. By this I mean that historians typically draw conclusions and connections, as that's part of their work. They can look at something and say "it's believed that..." without really needing to say who is saying or believing the claims in question.

In contrast, Wikipedia can only summarize what others have outside said - we can't draw our own conclusions. When it comes to things that aren't concrete facts, we have to attribute the claims to someone. So rather than "it's likely that (claim)" we would have to say "Per historian Jane Smith, it is likely that (claim)", as we want to avoid it coming across like it's a connection or theory we came up with on our own.

We also need to avoid being too casual or avoiding euphemisms (MOS:EUPHEMISM). Instead of saying "she survived until..." or "passed away on..." we need to specifically say "she died on...". The reason for this is that not everyone is going to be familiar with the euphemisms in use and in some cases, it can come with certain connotations. For example, saying someone survived brings up the image that someone survived something like a physical ordeal. It's much more accurate and neutral to say that "She died on (date)" or "She lived at (location) until her death on (date)". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Wapsie Crossing (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I wanted to make sourcing more of its own thing as this is another big issue. Right now I'm looking at the sourcing and trying to see how much of it is primary and how much is coverage in secondary, independent sources that could establish notability.

I'm concerned that much of this is primary and that there's not really a lot that was written about Fitzpatrick. She put out a lot of work, but we need coverage about her to help establish notability. This is probably one of the more frustrating aspects of Wikipedia when it comes to people of local notability. Someone could be absolutely notable to a historian, but still not notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Back when I was volunteering at the Library of Virginia this was one of the things that both baffled and offended the historians the most. An individual would be of obvious notability and importance to them, as otherwise they wouldn't be looking into them or storing their papers. But being told that they needed news coverage (or guideline specific standards to be met) was kind of jaw dropping to them. They understood of course, but it was still just sort of like entering Bizzaro World to them.

She may be able to pass WP:NACADEMIC but we would need to show that Fitzpatrick meets guidelines there. My recommendation would be to look and see if there have been any historical works written about her or that mention her in any depth. For example, does she have a listing in a state encyclopedia ala Encyclopedia Virginia or Dictionary of Virginia Biography? By this I mean something that is run by an organization like the Library of Virginia or a scholarly or academic group? Those could definitely count. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but to the best of my knowledge, no other resources have been published that describe Mary Frances' accomplishments. The are seven women on this Wikipedia list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Botanists for whom I've completed a short biography. And I'm working on an 8th. If memory serves me correctly, none of them were of sufficiently high profile to warrant a write-up in an "encyclopedia". That's why I've written the aforementioned biographies and a few hundred others - to give the little-known botanist some credit for their work. Wapsie Crossing (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone seen a picture of her?

The article could use one. If it's not PD we can "free use" it. If someone in her family sees this, please consider contributing one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no photographs. Wapsie Crossing (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice some drawings by her, I may add one of those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]