User talk:Kj cheetham

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Kj cheetham,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15022 articles, as of 00:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheongpyeong Dam

Hi, I noticed you tagged the article I created with {{one source}}. It's true, the article (sv.wiki) I used for the translation had some sources, unfortunately they were broken links to NASA website about the climate of the zone around the dam.--Carnby (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Carnby, thanks for your message. Hopefully someone else will notice the tag and find some further sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hill End Colliery fire

Hi Kj cheetham,

Thanks for your message regarding the review of this article. I have split the the article into sections, as suggested.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi TrimmerinWiki, thanks for letting me know. I've now removed the tag. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Reshma Kewalramani

Hi Kj Cheetham. I recently posted an edit request on Talk:Reshma Kewalramani, the CEO of Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Since you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists, I thought you might be interested in helping out with that request, which is just a simple update to Kewalramani's "Boards and awards" section. Thanks so much. JohnDatVertex (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi JohnDatVertex, I admit sometimes I think including just being included in various lists of people by other organisations is almost a bit of WP:PROMO rather than an actual award, but I'd done your request. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Orit Peleg

Please check this out - I think the notability tag should be removed. Talk:Orit Peleg#Notability ProfessorCuprous (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi ProfessorCuprous, I'll take a look. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Ejiama

Hi Kj Cheetham, Thanks for the review on the page. I have added more categories. Let me know if there's anymore suggestion you would like me to update otherwise, I think the notability tag should be removed. Happy to keep learning as I move forward. Kind Regards Oceanview1590 (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oceanview1590 thanks for your message. I've taken off the tag about categories on Sarah Ejiama, but I also removed the journal category as the subject isn't a journal. I still feel there is an issue of MOS:OVERLINK, as words like "research" don't warrant a wikilink. Words like "melanoma" do warrant a wikilink, but only once, not every time it occurs. Regard notability, can you point me to the WP:THREE most important independant sources that cover the subject? As I don't think the subject is a pass of WP:NPROF, but might be notable under WP:GNG. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Rather than Category:University of Manchester, perhaps Category:People associated with the University of Manchester is more appropriate? Similar with other universities. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have fixed the issue of MOS:OVERLINK, I only linked 'research' once and unlinked the rest. I also unlinked the word 'Melanoma'. The WP:THREE for the subject are: https://abstracts.ncri.org.uk/abstract/ultraviolet-radiation-accelerates-braf-driven-melanomagenesis-by-targeting-tp53-3/

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/paradox-breaking-raf-inhibitors-that-also-target-src-are-effectiv/persons/

https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v511y2014i7510d10.1038_nature13298.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714100342.htm

As you will observe above, I shared 4 instead. The subject passes WP:NPROF notability. I will appreciate if you could kindly remove the notability tag. I have also removed the removed the category: University of Manchester and will replace it subsequently with the Cat as advised above.

Kind Regards Oceanview1590 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Those two words were just examples, that applies to all the other wikilinks too - should only be one wikilink per word in the main text typically as per MOS:LINKONCE. The cat change also applies to the other universities too. For the sources, the first 3 you gave are papers where the subject is a co-author, and hence not independant. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714100342.htm is more indepedant, but doesn't talk about Sarah Ejiama at all. So I'm still not convinced about the notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Noted as regards the links. will update again as required. Thanks. I appreciate your concern regarding the subject. The subject as clearly stated in the article is a 'Research Assistant' that does most of the research works like a paralegal in a law firm if am to use this analogy. Most of the articles the subject contributed are worked they carried out within the Molecular Oncology team lab for their Director - Richard Marais which needs to be recognised. As regards the independent source - Sciencedaily above, the subject Sarah Ejiama is also one of the authors of that paper if you scroll down. From scientific perspective, you don't just have your name added to a paper publication if you haven't contributed to a reasonable amount. If you search some of the publications, you will also see - Richard Marais also a co-author together with the subject. Also the subject worked with Makoto Furutani-Seiki as one of his students. I hope this helps to clarify things for you. Cheers Oceanview1590 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm aware of how paper publishing works, given I have an academic background myself. However to show notability on Wikipedia there is a need for significant coverage independant of the subject, as per WP:GNG, though WP:NPROF is an alternative route to showing notability, through large numbers of citations, being head of a major journal or university, being a named chair, etc. Working with Makoto Furutani-Seiki doesn't count for noability, as it's not WP:INHERITED. If there aren't more independant sources I'll probably take it to WP:AFD to get a wider concensus. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Let's not go that route for now as this is all about having a clear understanding of all the areas covered. I appreciate that you have an academic background and also I haven't mentioned that working with Makoto Furautani-Seiki makes subject notable or not notable. The subject has clearly co-authored couple of papers involving Cancer and Melanoma; and definitely this should be recognised as a form of contribution towards notability judging all the reliable sources that published their work. Also from my understanding I have managed to research a lot of publications to support the article and also researching for more. Maybe am missing something here, I didn't realise that being co-authored in different articles doesn't make up as contribution in the area of science? Definitely the amount of work carried out by the subject has helped informed work in this field of science regardless if this subject has a standalone paper by herself?

Finally, I used the advisors above as an analogy but not to justify that the notability has to be inherited or transferred. Thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll have another look tomorrow, but any papers written by the subject don't count for notability at all. What counts is other people referring to them. This isn't about contributions to science, it's about the impact their contributions had. Journals that publish the subject's work may be reliable, but articles by the subject or their institution about them are not independant. Simply getting citations is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for academics, hence there is a need for things like significant review articles of their work, or large numbers of citations that go beyond what would be expected by their peers, otherwise I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON. You said "Definitely the amount of work carried out by the subject has helped informed work in this field" - do you have independant sources to support that statement? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Ashcraft notability tag

Thank you for the edits to the Thomas Ashcraft page! Regarding the notability tag, Ashcraft's work documenting atmospheric "sprites" (aka transient luminous events) is unusual, and has been the subject of independent articles in the New York Times <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/science/on-the-hunt-for-a-sprite-on-a-midsummers-night.html>, WIRED <https://www.wired.com/2013/07/transient-luminous-events/>, and the Santa Fe New Mexican, which is the paper of record for Santa Fe NM <https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/citizen-scientist-driven-by-the-need-to-discover/article_ef9e2a1c-07eb-11eb-895e-532df1d8b495.html>. He is a citizen scientist contributor to NASA <https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/people/488/thomas-ashcraft/> and his images have been featured on NASA's "Astronomy Picture of the Day" blog <https://apod.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search>. It's true Ashcraft's h-index isn't high-- I wasn't looking at the NPROF guidelines for notability (just the regular WP:Notability page).

Regarding orphan status, I would like to address this issue by linking to the Thomas Ashcraft page from the existing WP Sprite LIghtning page <Sprite (lightning)>, and post images from Ashcraft's observatory as a contribution to the sprite page. If I obtained Ashcraft's permission to share the image(s) as CCO on wikipedia, would this be ok? Would I need to document the permission? Any advice you have on how to obtain permission for image posting without violating any WP rules would be much appreciated.

Thank you for deleting the section of the bio/education that was not sourced properly. Sorry about that.

Thank you -- Jendo JendoCalryssian (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)