Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


New template for ISIHighlyCited researchers[edit]

I've just created {{ISIHighlyCited}} to make it easier to add links to for ISI highly cited researchers. I thought about adding it to this WikiProject's main page rather than this Talk page, but I couldn't spot a suitable place to put it. --Qwfp (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what should we be doing with this template?Chrisvanlang (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The question is moot: If you click on it, you'll see that the template has been deleted a while ago. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Golding Bird[edit]

Golding Bird has been nominated for FA. You are welcome to add your comments there. SpinningSpark 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Hancock[edit]

Would anyone care to write about Peter A. Hancock, a human factors researcher? He is a Provost's Distinguished Research Professor and Pegasus Professor at the University of Central Florida. He previously founded and directed the Human Factors Research Laboratory (HFRL) at the University of Minnesota. User talk:Mit2lab has been trying to but has just been pasting in text from his own website. He seems to have an academic record to pass WP:PROF and might pass the GNG for his press coverage.[1] I would give it a go but I'm not feeling inspired. Fences&Windows 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking[edit]

The Stephan Hawking article has been put up for Peer review as part of a long-term plan to push it in the direction of FA. We'd appreciate any comments from you guys in your capacity as Biography experts... :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael F. Holick's biography should be categorized as "high-importance"[edit]

Dear WikiProject Biography/Science and academia-Team,

I've written main parts of the article Michael F. Holick and saw that his biography was categorized as "low-importance" which is absolutely inappropriate in my opinion. So I changed it to "high-importance" - I hope that's ok and I'd like to clearify my rationale for this:

Dr. Holick's discoveries laid the foundation for new diagnostic tests and therapies for vitamin D-related diseases, such as diseases affecting the bone metabolism, dermatological and nephrological pathologies. At least several hundrets of millions of people suffer from vitamin D deficiency, what could for the first time been meassured and quantified due to the diagnostic test vitamin D-test he developed. These discoveries are of great importance. There was a Nobel prize awarded for the isolation of Vitamin D in 1928 for Adolf Windaus, Niels Ryberg Finsen also received a Nobel prize for the discovery of the beneficial effects of photo therapy (due to vitamin D production). So the isolation of the 2 other major vitamin D forms (25-OH-Vitamin D and 1,25-OH2-Vitamin D + the chemical synthesis of the latter one) should not be considered as low-importance, but high-importance! His contributions to the field of medicine are outstanding. That's why his biography is a high-importance biography!

PS: As a medical doctor who has been studying the effects of vitamin D scientifically I strongly believe his scientific achievements are priceless and laid the foundation for a diagnosis and therapy of vitamin d deficiency which affects huge parts of the population.

PPS: On a side note: Those who will read this are most likely very active Wikipedians who don't get too much sun exposure. I'm convinced the majority of you is vitamin D deficient. Anyways... The article should be categorized "high-important". Thank you!--Matthias3110 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has a solid foundation but still needs to be improved in quality. I appreciate all help to perfectionize the article and thank you in advance.--Matthias3110 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Rajagopal (professor)[edit]

Hello. Could someone please cast a critical eye over the article Rajagopal (professor)? There is a suggestion on the talk page that the article is overly promotional and that the individual may not warrant inclusion. Dr. Rajogopal has apparently published 40 papers, which have been cited only 40 times. On the other hand, the page asserts that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. I'm not familiar with that society, and don't know whether it might satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria, "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society" etc. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Faculty and Alumni Categories[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. How do we should we treat categories for various academics. What counts as a faculty member and when should the category be applied. In particular, how do we consider the place where a person did their postdoc? --Chrisvanlang (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Postdoc" is a position and even though it's considered part of a person's training, this does not make them an alumnus of the institution where they did their postdoc. Neither is postdoc considered a faculty position, so they don't fall in that category, either. However, the place where they did their postdoc can be listed under "workplaces" in an infobox or mentioned in a bio, for example. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Project scope[edit]

I assume the project covers biologist, physicist, historians etc. but what about engineers, architects and medical professionals? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • They're covered, too, as they also work in science, albeit in more applied fields. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez[edit]

Ariel Fernandez has been tagged by two different editors for conflict of interest and inadequate sourcing of a biography of a living person, and both times the tags were removed quickly. The subject appears to be notable, but there is some self-promotion. The concerns behind the tags are discussed at Talk:Ariel Fernandez and User talk:Arifer. Some more eyes should probably be on this article. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


I have nominated Barbara McClintock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to let you all know that Sarah Stierch and I have started a new WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. We thought some of you may be interested. Thanks for your time! If you have any questions, feel free to ask one of us on our talk page. All the best, Keilana|Parlez ici 06:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN about Robert Almeder[edit]

There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source for the article on Ian Stevenson (1918–2007). Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

R.M. Grant[edit]

The article concerning Robert M. Grant (academic economic analyst) has apparently been merged (incorrectly) with Robert McQueen Grant (biblical scholar). There is a note to this effect on the Robert McQueen Grant talk page. Someone more skilled than I might care to look into this.Mannanan51 (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

Caroline Hoxby[edit]

I'd be grateful if other editors could have a look at Talk:Caroline Hoxby, where there is a discussion about whether to include a brief passage about critique of Hoxby's work, critique that received significant coverage/discussion by other scholars and in a number of journalism outlets. At this point the discussion has only two participants (including myself) and would benefit from outside input. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with Lore Alford Rogers and User:Maineshepp[edit]

Hi guys, I need help with Lore Alford Rogers and User:Maineshepp. She created the article through WP:AFC with a conspicuous amount of reliable sources. I'm pretty sure that we can bring this article up to WP:GOODARTICLE standard with the vast amount of references it has. However, I'm not a member of this project nor I'm interested on this subject. Could someone please help with both the article and User:Maineshepp? Please remember she is a newcomer and to WP:NOBITE. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edouard Ducpétiaux[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Edouard Ducpétiaux#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Meteorite people[edit]

Over at WikiProject Geology/Meteorites we're having a month long focus to eliminate red links either by starting new articles or by finding appropriate link targets within existing articles. We'd be very glad of WikiProject Biography/Science and academia's help with any of the following:

Most requested
The rest

GA review[edit] - Youreallycan 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hermann Stieve[edit]

Hermann Stieve is in the news today: specifically, reports of his anatomical investigations into recently-executed women under the Nazi regime. Wikipedia's article on him reads very oddly indeed: it reads like a machine translation, and seems to be at pains to portray him and his research in a favourable light. Can editors here please review the article? -- Gigacephalus (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox engineer[edit]

{{Infobox engineer}} has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

John Hagelin[edit]

I have put the article John Hagelin up for reassessment Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1. More input is welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?[edit]

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ORCID identifiers[edit]

ORCID, the Open Research Contributor ID is an identifier for contributors to academic journals, and other such publications, including Wikipedia. It's the equivalent for such people of an ISBN for a book. I would encourage all editors, but especially those who also contribute to such journals, to register for an ORCID. If you know any scientists or academics who are the subject of a Wikipedia article, please ask them to do so, too. ORCIDs can be added to articles, or user pages, using the {{Authority control}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon Invitation[edit]

CHF small logo
Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013.
Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science.
Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

Many of the articles of interest to us are biographical articles, particularly about women chemists and scientists, so your input would be very valuable. Many thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion[edit]

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect the naming conventions of this WikiProject. Thanks. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

FAR notification[edit]

I have nominated Sylvanus Morley for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ThatCampPhilly Edit-a-thon Invitation[edit]

CHF small logo
Please join the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at THATCamp Philly, September 27, 2013, held at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. Bring your own content to work on, or get an early start on Ada Lovelace Day with our resources about women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Science and academia biography pages at Articles for creation[edit]

There are a number of rejected Wikipedia:Articles for creation submissions at Special:AllPages/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Professor and Special:AllPages/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Prof. Some of the submissions may be worth salvaging. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification: Featured Article Review for Stephen Hawking[edit]

There are some serious deficiencies which several users have identified in the Stephen Hawking article which was promoted to FA status earlier this year after an FAC that wasn't rigorous. Please feel free to comment and contribute to the debate at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 on whether this article should be delisted and what work needs to be done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wonder Women of Natural History: Wikipedia editathon at London Zoo, January 18th[edit]

Hi All

I'm organising a Wikipedia editathon at London Zoo on January the 18th, please have a look and come or join in online if you'd like. More info here.


Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Human height[edit]

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Learned minds and extra eyes requested at Brian Leiter[edit]

Hello WikiProject!

Brian Leiter, a BLP article within your scope needs help in establishing a neutral criticism section. There have been concerns that the article's subject and his contemporaries may be editing the article to conform criticism to a specific POV, and that this has been going on for a few years. Anyhow, your expertise is welcome. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th !!![edit]

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Shyamal (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith M. Bennett[edit]

Hello academia experts. This old abandoned Afc draft is about a professor. She holds a named chair, but there i no Google Scholar report. I tried to find references and there are many, but there are so many professors named Judith Bennett that I can't seem to sort them all out. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

ERC grant, IEEE newsletter[edit]

Does anyone know off hand whether a European Research Council EXPLORERS grant constitutes a "highly prestigious academic award", or if editing an IEEE newsletter implies either "Fellow of a major scholarly society" or "editor of a major well-established academic journal"? (I see that IEEE is selective for fellows, but editors might be ordinary members.) I'm trying to decide whether Pierre-Yves Oudeyer satisfies notability for academics. I've just noticed that his academic awards are mainly grants or things like best paper at a particular conference. Cnilep (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Editing an IEEE scientific journal would satisfy NACADEMICS, but editing a newsletter would not. I don't know about the ERC grant. Grants are rarely exclusive enough to make someone notable (as opposed to awards, even though one may say that a grant has been "awarded", it's not the same thing as an award). In addition, I cannot find any "EXPLORERS grant" on the ERC website, but there is a "Starting Grant" and personally I would take that as a promising sign, but not proof of notability. However, his GS profile lists several highly-cited articles (4 cited >100 times) and an h-index of 23. This is generally enough to be considered meeting NACADEMICS#1 in AfD discussions. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That does help. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Could someone in the project Talk page assess this new one please Thanks - Alfred Lodge. Acabashi (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz deletion discussion notice[edit]

  1. Adrianne Wadewitz
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz

There is an ongoing deletion discussion taking place now about whether or not to have a biographical article about Adrianne Wadewitz on Wikipedia.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

For those newer to Wikipedia, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Notability.

Cirt (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Astronomy people[edit]

Category:Astronomy people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for renaming -- (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review[edit]

  1. Adrianne Wadewitz
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1

I've nominated the article Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review.

Discussion is at the peer review subpage, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Nikola Tesla's birthplace be changed?[edit]

An RfC Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? has been created. Comments are welcome.- MrX 15:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Historians of science, geneticists, biochemists, see[edit]

George M. Church article, and recent talk entry from me at the same article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelsen[edit]

Could somebody from "WP:ACAD" take a look at Robert S. Nelsen. Some information about his early life was recently added that may in fact be true, but is currently unsourced. I have posted my concerns about this at Talk:Robert S. Nelsen#Early life but this unsourced stuff probably should immediately be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. I initially added {{citation needed}} templates, but removed them as soon as I found out such templates are not supposed to be used in such situations. Anyway, I just thought I'd ask here since this article would seem to fall under your purview and your members probably have dealt with this kind of thing before. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)