Talk:Ramon Lobato

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tuh00694.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing article

Hi Kingsif, there's no conflict of interest here - the student involved had no contact with Lobato to the best of my knowledge. I've edited down some of the content to be more neutral. As far as notability goes, Lobato looks to be notable per the reviews for his work. His citation index is pretty decent as well - not the most impressive I've seen, but not bad either. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): Okay, but even without COI there's still issues - it's written more like a resume or promotion of achievements than an encyclopedia article. Info about his thesis is cited to his thesis, a primary source - if it were notable, it would be covered by secondary sources. Furthermore, the article relies mostly on his CV to source it; these can be accepted for actors when the physical appearance in a work backs it up, but not for academics - again, if it's a notable award or institution, a news source will have covered it. None of his awards have pages on Wikipedia, less than half have a source that isn't his CV. The list of awards would be better written in prose than a bullet list. Exactly half of the sources were written by the subject himself. He may be notable, but there is no evidence of that from this article. I appreciate Wiki Ed's aims, but is there not a part about finding appropriate sources? If we were to remove everything without appropriate sourcing, as we should since it's a BLP, there would be next to nothing here. Kingsif (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, why are his three books sourced to seven different people talking about it - as it simply says these are books that exist, they can be sourced to themselves. If these other sources give reviews or critical discussion, that should make an appearance in the article. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi! I thought it would be good to go over these in bullet points:

1. With the reviews, there were sections that covered the reception for his work and another that went into more detail about his work, but I wasn't sure if these were the ones that were making the article seem promotional or if they were where the undue weight tag was coming from. My thought process here was to boil it down to its essentials and then build it back up once I had more information.
2. As far as the tags go, they were honestly kind of confusing since there were so many and there was no note on the talk page. In general, especially when I tag under my main account (ReaderofthePack, formerly Tokyogirl79), I try to keep the tags at a minimum or leave an explanation on the talk page if there are a lot of them. For example, Pichpich left the resume tag initially - there are other problems with the page, but the resume tag does pretty much encapsulate a lot of issues (notability, sourcing, promotional tone, etc). This gave me a clearer idea of what to fix with the page. Keep in mind that WP:OVERTAGGING can actually be less clear instead of more clear.
3. With the reviews being where they are, most of this is because I wanted to get it down to a more minimal state to try to figure out what was causing so many issues. However that said, it's also fine for reviews to be in a bibliography section as a source - they do establish that the book exists as well as show notability. It's actually kind of common for this with some authors, particularly in cases where the reviews are the main secondary, independent sources.
4. I've removed the notability tags. Notability has been established through the reviews, as seven reviews would have him meet both NAUTHOR and to a lesser extent, NPROF. (NPROF is expected more to be established through things like membership in notable academic institutions and articles about their body of work, but reviews can count towards this as well.) There is most definitely an issue with verification since the article was based very heavily on primary sources, however, but that's a separate issue than notability.
5. Primary sources can be used - they should just be used sparingly and only for non-major claims. Ideally they would be the most infrequently used source in the article and when they're used, it should not be things like WP:LINKEDIN and a CV because those can be hard to authenticate. It's better to use something like say, their staff bio on the university's website since that is not only easier to authenticate but has also presumably gone through at least some quality control to prevent any major issues. The staff bios also tend to have the most major claims, which are typically the ones that should generally be in an article. Part of the reason why primary sources are sometimes usable is in cases where you have someone (ie, academics, non-mainstream authors, etc) who passes notability guidelines but isn't high profile enough to get the writeup that say, Stephen King or Marie Curie would receive. This prevents the page from being just a list of their works, essentially.
6. For the awards, I just hadn't gotten to that section yet. It was the end of the day and going through the section would require that I find something else other than his CV, so I wanted to do it today, when I was more fresh. Also, as far as I've seen on Wikipedia it's fine for an awards/accolades section to be either prose or bullet points, although the fewer the awards the better it is to put it in prose in my opinion. To be honest, I'll probably end up removing this section and working any notable awards into the career or education sections, since most of these don't really look major enough to mention or at least have in a separate awards/accolades section.

I'll have more notes as I go through - I'm still very much working on the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)