Jump to content

Talk:Donna Strickland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tinynull (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 2 October 2018 (→‎Offer of help: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Intern

She spoke today that she was an intern during suaid studies.Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFC draft

Why wasn't the declined AFC draft moved to create this article? --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:D4FE:243:70E7:A0ED (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be history-merged to give credit to the original author. --Hegvald (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
History merge is for cases where content of another page was copied. It appears Donna Strickland was written from scratch or using a little of Gérard Mourou but not Draft:Donna Strickland. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Coverage of Wikipedia's anti-woman bias

A lot of the coverage around her Nobel prize has centered around Wikipedia's anti-woman bias. May be worth a mention in the article itself.

For example:

"Wikipedia rejected an entry on today’s Nobel Prize winner in May because she wasn’t famous enough" https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-rejected-nobel-prize-winner-donna-strickland-because-she-wasnt-famous-enough/

“It took a Nobel prize for Donna Strickland to be noticed enough to have a (short) Wikipedia page written about her. Another example of how womens’ contributions to science go unnoticed and uncelebrated" https://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2018/oct/02/nobel-prize-in-physics-2018-live — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.13.30.42 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This part: "Only 17% of the current biographical entries on Wikipedia as of October 2, 2018 are about women, and the site is particularly thin on women in science" is not anyhow related to her research or her notability. I think it should be removed. Teemu (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this warrants a separate section in the article? Axeman89 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article about the phenomenon itself, rather than a section on Strickland's article would be more appropriate? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that belongs in an article such as Criticism of Wikipedia, not here (where it's self-referential trivia). Robofish (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of help

Hi, I work for the Optical Society and noticed that there is some editing work happening to round out this profile. I noticed it was missing images and some content. I'm currently assisting with updating the bio on our website as Dr. Strickland has been actively involved with the society including as our 2013 President and we've seen a lot of interest for obvious reasons today. I don't want to make any edits myself due to COI but I wanted to extend the offer of assistance in acquiring media or information/references if desired. - Tinynull (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]