Talk:Rylie Green

Awards

How many of the awards mentioned are actually significant? There seems to be a fair amount of padding in this article, with many citations that say nothing about the subject/are not independent. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Particularly curious about the Fresh Science award - She received the 2010 Fresh Science Award. Yes, it is a competition, per the source sidebar, but if that source is intended to support that she won the award then it begs the question of what the other 15 people listed achieved, if anything. - 05:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Resolved this one to some extent - she was one of 80 who applied for it and 16 got it - reworded. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, note that the Ruldolf Cimdeins Award of the European Society of Biomaterials is actually the Rudolf Cimdins Scholarship of the European Society for Biomaterials, and appears to be basically a grant to gain entry to their conference - see here. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Suffrage Science awards (there are many each year) are intended to promote networking and I'm not sure how significant they are because, per the cited source "Today’s winners will receive jewellery pieces that were given to the generation of women before them, in 2015. The winners will keep the piece for the next two years, then choose their own nominee to whom they will pass it on. The aim is to create a network of connected women that helps to inspire others to enter science, and to stay." In other words, Green, along with all the other awardees after the first year (2011) was given the thing based on the opinion of one person. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Aims

Does this source from 2007 really support She aims to extend the lifetimes of bioelectronic devices such as bionic eyes, robot limbs and brain–computer interface, so they are effective over a patient's life? - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Natureium (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought. Perhaps it is a left-over from some prior edit. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Rank

According to her own cited bio, she holds the post of Reader. I've no idea why the lead calls her a Senior Lecturer, nor how Imperial applies these rankings - Reader suggests that it is something of a moveable feast in the UK. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Maybe Green's job title changed? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I think that must be the case. See this version. I'll update the lead. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, she was recently made Reader (Associate Prof in US). She is highly cited (https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=U6Wv5IMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) in a field which is not typically. She has secured a large grant early in her career, which again is unusual. I think the page could be expanded but Green is certainly notable, and will likely be a Professor soon. Jesswade88 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about notability but rather accuracy; as it turns out, in this instance, it was just an updating issue. That said, as a word to the wise, "large" is a subjective term, as is "early career", and we wouldn't give any weight to what someone might possibly become provided they are not run over by a bus tomorrow. I'm also not happy about you inserting "Associate Professor" without a source - please read our article on Reader (academic rank), which seems to demonstrate what I said above, ie: the term is akin to a moveable feast, meaning one thing in one institution and something else somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Overciting

@Jesswade88: regarding this edit, could you please review the information at WP:OVERCITE. For example, there is no need for a multitude of citations to support the statement that she obtained a PhD in XYZ from UNSW. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but two are interviews which are relevant, and contain short biographical info in the introduction, but i knew someone would say wasn't appropriate for a reference.Jesswade88 (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Another issue

Her work on conductive bioplastics was selected with that of other early career Australian researchers to present at Melbourne Museum. is actually connected to the Fresh Science thing - part of the package for the 16 applicants who were selected. But putting it in a separate section, several sentences away from the mention of the Fresh Science award makes it look like a completely separate "achievement". That doesn't seem right to me. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How about As part of the Fresh Science award, her work on conductive.... Richard Nevell (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done something like that. Feel free to fiddle with it, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)