Template:Did you know nominations/Chen Tiemei
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chen Tiemei
[edit]- ... that archaeologist Chen Tiemei proposed the first chronology for Palaeolithic China? Source: "著名科技考古学家陈铁梅逝世 曾提出我国第一个旧石器考古年表" - Renowned scientific archaeologist Chen Tiemei passes away; he proposed the first chronology for Palaeolithic China
- Reviewed: Flyway
Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC).
Date, size, neutrality, hook, copyvio spotcheck, QPQR, all GTG. My only concern is the references - university homepage and two obituaries. Is he notable per WP:NPROF? The claim " a pioneer in scientific archaeology and a founder of quantitative archaeology in China" is significant, but sourced to his own university, and the one in the hook for "proposed the first chronology for Palaeolithic China" is sourced to an obituary. I'll ping User:DGG and User:Randykitty for a 30. Can we AGF this as notable (I am leaning towards yes) AND put it on the front page with those (non-English) sources (here I am a bit wary of peacocking in present not very independent sources...)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- apparently notable on account of the books.I removed the sentence quoted above, which is unnecessary; the specific accomplishments in the following paragraph show his status more clearly and unambiguously. Obit writing tends to be praise, even in scientific obits, so it is not a RS for judgments, but it is for the actual accomplishments listed there DGG ( talk ) 10:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Piotrus and DGG: To be honest, I'm a bit shocked by the questioning of his notability. Academics, even distinguished scientists, do not appear in mainstream news very often, and when multiple major media outlets call someone "a famous archaeologist", it's a sure sign that he was at the top of his field. And this is borne out by a search of his name on Google Scholar and Google books (and these do not even include Chinese publications which are generally not online). His publications are frequently cited in prestigious and definitive works such as Science and Civilisation in China [1] and The Archaeology of China. Obituaries tend to be praise, but they don't make up facts. And the hook is sourced to a major newspaper The Beijing News, which is completely independent of the subject. I've dug out my copy of the Dictionary of Chinese Archaeology and added info from his entry in that book which confirms the media report. Unfortunately it's not on Google, like 99% of Chinese books. -Zanhe (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
per DGG's second opinion (and also per AGF him having an entry in a work like Great Dictionary of Chinese Archaeology). Also, User:Zanhe, I encourage you to take part in our discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) where we try to discuss such issues and formulate relevant policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Piotrus and DGG: To be honest, I'm a bit shocked by the questioning of his notability. Academics, even distinguished scientists, do not appear in mainstream news very often, and when multiple major media outlets call someone "a famous archaeologist", it's a sure sign that he was at the top of his field. And this is borne out by a search of his name on Google Scholar and Google books (and these do not even include Chinese publications which are generally not online). His publications are frequently cited in prestigious and definitive works such as Science and Civilisation in China [1] and The Archaeology of China. Obituaries tend to be praise, but they don't make up facts. And the hook is sourced to a major newspaper The Beijing News, which is completely independent of the subject. I've dug out my copy of the Dictionary of Chinese Archaeology and added info from his entry in that book which confirms the media report. Unfortunately it's not on Google, like 99% of Chinese books. -Zanhe (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
