Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
An automatically generated feed of new articles about women scientists
Hey folks! I've been working with the Wikimedia Search team to get topic predictions from mw:ORES into the search feature on Wikipedia. And I just realized that there was something really cool that you can do with it that y'all might be interested in. If you type "articletopic:women articletopic:stem" into the search box, it will return you a list of articles that my topic model thinks are about women scientists. You can further sort this list by article creation date and *boom*, you have a list of new articles about women scientists that can be tagged, sorted, and supported by this WikiProject. check it out. I'm excited about this because I think y'all are the right people to review these articles and support the (often new) contributors who are working on them. What do you think? I'd like to work with people to help bring feeds of topicly relevant stuff (new articles, edits, new editors, etc.) to WikiProjects like yours. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
New articles that need attention section
Is Donna Strickland's article the best example to use? I thought it was just a case of a single editor rejecting a version without referring to WP:NPROF...? She did have an article created when the Nobel winners for 2018 were actually announced. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Helen Arney
Why is the Helen Arney page part of the women scientists project? She is a science (physics specifically) graduate, that does *not* make her a scientist. 86.161.154.173 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well spotted. I noticed her article also is in a Physicist category, and the short description (probably from Wikidata) also says physcist. I'll make some adjustments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
MA mansigh
See draft. Computer programmer , blossomed 1950s, ala tsingou. How well can you folk write? Let’s go.... Ema--or (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
See draft here User talk:Ema--or/Mary Ann Mansigh. Cheers! Ema--or (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I’m officially throwing down a challenge. Ema--or (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean Mary tsingou. Ema--or (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I came across this Columbia University professor when preparing her husband’s page for ITN—he is currently featured on Main Page as a recent death, sadly. As this might drive traffic to her and she is clearly wikinotable, I made a go at starting her page. But I am very far from expert in her areas of study, neuroscience and epidemiology (she studies aging and Alzheimer’s in those with Down syndrome). If anyone is available to lend a hand in punching up my first pass at it, I’d be grateful! Thank you for all you do. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Please Textor Alector (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This draft was up for G13 but requested it be postponed. She is an astrobiologist working a NASA's Goddard Science Center and noticed she is cited on several articles, such as Mars general circulation model so seems to have potential at least. S0091 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Editathon at EPFL on February 11th, 2021
Hello,
As a community liaison of Wikimedia Switzerland for English language participants, I'd like to inform you and invite you to an editathon centered on women scientists that EPFL will be holding on February 11th, 2021, from 2PM to 7PM (time of Bern). Non-beginners can pop in from 3:15PM on. Here is the project page (on meta)
As the date corresponds to the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, I understand the participants to this WikiProject are likely to be busy already, but we would be happy to have them join us if they would like to.--Flor WMCH (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Mary Ann Mansigh
Female programme writer, co-creator of moldyn method. Please we all need to come out for this one, bigly. A raison d'etre case if ever was. Have posted on other sub- science wp's forums as well. Ema--or (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Interesting epfl has quite a bit on her.
- This seems like a case of WP:CANVASS to me... -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for my non-NPOV canvas! Ema--or (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just an issue to discuss. Just wanted to name an issue, which I asked for consultation on, but was not able to get any thing on before the end of discussion. There is the issue of my inconsistencies on Mansigh btw main space and other-space, particularly afd- and Wp project-space, although it is particularly a matter for subjective interpretation. I’d like to end by once again apologising for any trouble and thanking anyone who offered any opinion or contribution to the chat, as well as for the space and audience in a place such as this. Bye, ‘til next time. Ema--or (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Marjorie Korringa
I recently completed an article on Marjorie Korringa, an igneous petrologist, volcanologist, and structural geologist. Could she be added to the list? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Korringa Emblossomed (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Emblossomed
- Hi Emblossomed, looking at the talk page the article has already been added to the project. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Women in STEM in Wikipedia editathon
Hello fellow Wikipedians. For any interested beginner editors like me, I see there is a Women in STEM in Wikipedia Editathon being hosted by Oregon State University this Friday, March 19, 2021 from 1-5PM (Pacific Time) online via Zoom and Slack. "This will be an online editathon that includes training and breakout rooms, along with a slack channel to ask questions of the trainers or other participants." See their Meetup page for more info and to register Wikipedia:Meetup/OregonStateUniversity/WS2021 remando (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
List of notable STEM women lacking articles on my userpage
(Originally posted this in the Worklist talk page) I tabulate the Scopus citation metrics of AfD academic subjects as compared to all or most of their coauthors, whose citation data I put into a giant spreadsheet. This leads me to the names of dozens of STEM women who generally pass NPROF C1 by very wide margins (e.g. Susan L. McElroy, whose h-index is 111). I have just now started putting them in a sortable table transcluded on my userpage. I include links to their relevant professional profiles as well as total citations, h-index, and highest single citation. I am no good at writing articles, but hopefully this will be of use to some of you? JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of date Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh worklist
Hello. I thought I'd let you know that the Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh worklist for WikiProject Women scientists is out of date. Currently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/Worklist/Current FRSE only goes up to 2013. However, https://www.rse.org.uk/fellows/ states that there were women fellows since then, such as 2020. Therefore, this list and maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/Worklist/Deceased FRSE needs updating. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
New Member
Hi! I had to spend the last semester learning how to use Wikipedia as an editor through WikiEdu for one of my University classes. I really enjoyed the work and I came across your project, which is fantastic endeavor! I'd like to join your project if I can (I'm new but I'll get better), but I'm not sure if there's anything I need to officially do to do that?
I did some updates on the pages of Christy Haynes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Haynes and Catherine Murphy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_J._Murphy as part of my class, so I'd love any feedback or thoughts on them. (If this wasn't the right place to post this message, just let me know! I think it's correct? But my class was part of the limnology and oceanography wiki project, so maybe they do things different over there). Steminist04 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome! To "join", you can just add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_scientists#Members. I see you've also got the project's userbox on your user page. :) Feel free to give me a talk on your talk page if you get stuck! Keep up the good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Donna Amenta has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Seems to be a rather unremarkable scientist where the wiki page has been in need of citations for 8 years. As the one source provided on this page (which has been the only source since it's inception) is a broken link, this page defacto unsourced. I was unable to find anything meaningful about her through searching methods that could even come close to satisfying notability guidelines. There's also a list of books on the side of the page that she seems to not have written and I am not sure why they are there as they don't even seem science related? Of what I did find, she has an h-score of 5, which is quite terrible, and fails blatently at all WP:PROF guidelines, as well as WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Heart (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the PROD. She indeed only has an h-index of 5 and a total of 67 citations, well, well below that of other chemists with WP articles. Being a professor is by itself not enough to meet NPROF; the article as it stands definitely does not demonstrate notability of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Gillian Foulger and "Icelandia"
Gillian Foulger has recently gained prominence in the media for reporting on Icelandia, the name she and her colleagues from Durham University have given to what they believe is a submerged continent between Greenland and Europe. I've added a snippet to Foulger's biography but it seem to me it deserves more attention, possibly with a new article on Icelandia. As geology is not my field, maybe one or more of your participants could help out.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Joining the project
The WPI Wikipedia Editing Community is having its inaugural meeting on September 28th to edit/create/translate pages of women and other marginalized groups in Arts & Sciences. See our Rapid Grant submission for details. -- AlwaysInRed (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Question about notability criteria and patents and scientific papers
Hi all
I'm exploring helping WIPO (UN World Intellectual Property Organization) import some data into Wikidata including names of people with most patents and people with the most cited patents. I want this information to be useful for Wikiproject Women Scientists to identify people who could have Wikipedia articles. Could someone who is more knowledgable than me tell me if patents (legal documents published by government agencies), scientific papers published in journals written authored by the person or references to patents in other patents and papers help towards notability? And if yes how much?
I also posted this question on Women in Red here
Thanks
. John Cummings (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the general sentiment at WIR: according to our academic notability guidelines, heavy citations of scientific publications do count towards notability. What counts as heavy citation depends on the field; for some low-citation fields, it would be enough to have multiple papers with over 100 citations each (in Google Scholar, say) but in high-citation fields like machine learning, popular psychology, or computer vision those would not be particularly high numbers. It is the citations to the papers, not the papers themselves, that count, and we do not generally even consider patents. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- David Eppstein: I agree with you that simply holding a number of patents is no real measure of notability but I think we should perhaps be paying more attention to women inventors who have successfully filed pertinent patents. As you say, we've tended not to consider patents. Successful patent applications may indeed reveal more women deserving articles, especially in the Stem field.--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- It would also catch a lot more male inventors, too... You can of course trawl through patent applications yourself and keep a list of potential notable women (I have my own list derived from coauthors of AfD subjects) and then cross-check them with our current NPROF criteria, but putting a provision for patent success (even as a criterion that only presumes notability) would not work with our guidelines. It would be pretty much exactly equivalent to counting the number of published papers as evidence of scholarly impact, which we explicitly don't do. JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with all of this. The poor ratio of female-to-male biographies here cannot be improved by blindly relaxing our notability requirements, when there is no reason to expect that particular relaxation to be correlated to gender, or correlated in the direction we want. We have plenty of women who clearly do meet our current standards and yet are not included (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships). Our energies are better spent on covering those women, or maybe on looking to better value specific types of contributions where a greater proportion of contributors might have been women (for instance as teachers), rather than on pushing for across-the-board expansions of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- It would also catch a lot more male inventors, too... You can of course trawl through patent applications yourself and keep a list of potential notable women (I have my own list derived from coauthors of AfD subjects) and then cross-check them with our current NPROF criteria, but putting a provision for patent success (even as a criterion that only presumes notability) would not work with our guidelines. It would be pretty much exactly equivalent to counting the number of published papers as evidence of scholarly impact, which we explicitly don't do. JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- David Eppstein: I agree with you that simply holding a number of patents is no real measure of notability but I think we should perhaps be paying more attention to women inventors who have successfully filed pertinent patents. As you say, we've tended not to consider patents. Successful patent applications may indeed reveal more women deserving articles, especially in the Stem field.--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this, I'll come back to you both when I have imported some names into Wikidata. John Cummings (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi JoelleJay, David Eppstein, Ipigott, with the help of WIPO I've imported a list of the 50 female inventors with the most cited patents worldwide into Wikidata, you can find the redlist and a discussion about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#50_female_inventors_with_the_most_cited_patents_worldwide
Thanks very much
John Cummings (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- John Cummings: That looks really useful. Over the next week or two, I'll look into the five from Denmark.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Sharon A. Hill has an RFC
Sharon A. Hill has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion notice regarding Sharon A. Hill's article
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Sharon A. Hill regarding possible removal of content. The thread is Discussion_on_her_opinion_piece_on_Paranormal_State. Thank you.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Sharon A. Hill has an RFC
Sharon A. Hill has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Women in Red - Climate initiative
Hello friends, Our year-long initiative at Women in Red this year focuses on Women and Climate - scientists and activists, both past and present who are working to combat climate change. If you're working on a biography like that, it would be fantastic if you could add it to the project page, and add WIR-214 as a template on the article's talk page! Happy editing! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
De-orphaning?
Is adding links on this page sufficient to de-orphan an article? I'm going through the cleanup page for WikiProject Microbiology and trying to address some of the calls for help. Geoffhunt3 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Geoffhunt3, I'm afraid not, as per WP:ORPH the links need to be in article mainspace. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Good Article Editathon event in October 2022
Hello WikiProject Women scientists:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Goldsztajn (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Help with updating article
I proposed a few updates to the article about neurologist Leslie B. Vosshall here: Talk:Leslie B. Vosshall#Proposals October 2022. I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant but believe these changes are obvious improvements to address sourcing issues pointed out in a maintenance tag. A review by a project member would be very much appreciated. Thanks.W12SW77 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Same notice forum-shopped to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Requested changes have been made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Peer review for Rosalie Slaughter Morton
I'm looking for peer review feedback on Rosalie Slaughter Morton, which I'd like to get to Featured Article status. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosalie Slaughter Morton/archive1. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Recent edits to Dorothy Hodgkin
Please see Talk:Dorothy Hodgkin#Wiki Education assignment: General Chemistry I. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
As a result of comments stating that the list was not representative of the involvement of women in neuroscience on the talk page of WP:Women in Red, over the past few days I have undertaken a comprehensive update of this list. I am not too sure who are the experts in this area but I note that many of the individual biographies could benefit from updates too. It might also be useful to consider whether any of the women in Category:Women neurologists and Category:Women neurosurgeons could usefully be added to the list. There are of course considerable opportunities for expansion, for example on the basis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Neuroscientists. There are also a few red-linked entries on the list which would appear to deserve articles.--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Capitalization?
At the moment, the lede and the title of this page differ in capitalization. I think I would lean toward preferring the title case version all around, but thoughts? BhamBoi (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. The lede can use the "official" name and the title should use sentance case as per WP:TITLEFORMAT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Input
Could someone from this project please reply to Talk:Judy Fierstein#Importance?? Thanks! 
BhamBoi (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Peer review for Elisabeth Geleerd
A peer review has been opened for Elisabeth Geleerd, an article under the scope of this WikiProject, to potentially prepare it for featured article candidacy. Interested editors are invited to participate at the discussion page. Vaticidalprophet 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Article on the lack of female physicists in the media
I thought that this might be of interest here. This article also has many relevant links, including links to about ten scholarly articles.
- Kurlander, Carl; Singh, Chandralekha (2023-07-12). "Female physicists aren't represented in the media – and this lack of representation hurts the physics field". The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
Peaceray (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Nobel Prizewinner Katalin Karikó needs attention
I have drawn the attention of WikiProject Women in Green to this article which could benefit from improvement, possibly as a candidate for GA. Perhaps members of Women Scientists would like to collaborate.--Ipigott (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Women in X-ray crystallography
I recently moved a section from Crystallography#Contribution of women to X-ray crystallography to X-ray crystallography#Contribution of women to X-ray crystallography. Additions/edits welcome, particularly as both pages are really short on sources in this and many other areas. (I am slowly trying to repair them.) Ldm1954 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on if something she wrote on Instagram should be mentioned in the article. It's Gaza-war related, your opinion is welcome at Talk:Mika_Tosca#She_no_longer_works_at_SAIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
FAR for Emmy Noether
I have nominated Emmy Noether for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Paper on women economists
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Paper on women economists may be of interest to people, given Women Scientists are mentioned. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Marian Breland Bailey
Marian Breland Bailey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 10:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Elisabeth Burgos-Debray#Requested move 5 March 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Elisabeth Burgos-Debray#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)