User talk:MassAve74

This is MassAve74's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amanda Murdie (March 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gheus was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amanda Murdie and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gheus (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MassAve74! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gheus (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robin Markwica (March 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robin Markwica and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dustin Tingley has been accepted

Dustin Tingley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, MassAve74!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Gheus (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for sharing this resource, @Gheus. It looks like this is exactly the info I need. MassAve74 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Also, read WP:NPROF criteria before submitting more drafts on academics. Thanks! Gheus (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gheus, I have only just discovered your reply. Thank you very much. How interesting that you also recommend the WP:NPROF criteria. Another Wikipedian recently alerted me to this page. Many thanks! MassAve74 (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rafaela Dancygier has been accepted

Rafaela Dancygier, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! Thank you so much, @Gheus!

This has been my first accepted Wikipedia article. You made my day!

Special thanks also to @ForsythiaJo for their help, which improved the piece a LOT!

Good night, MassAve74 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joshua D. Kertzer has been accepted

Joshua D. Kertzer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amanda Murdie has been accepted

Amanda Murdie, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback. Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, MassAve74, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you made a good start yesterday with four biographies, including one of a woman. We look forward to many more. You can find guidance to writing about women in our essays, perhaps starting with the Primer. If you would like others to see your interest in the project, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ipigott, thank you for reaching out! [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red]] is a great initiative. It's shocking that only 20% of biographies on Wikipedia are on women. I will try and do my bit to help change this.

In fact, I have just come across a few more female academics who have been incredibly influential in their fields but who don't have Wikipedia entries yet: Jennifer Forestal (Loyola University Chicago), LaFleur Stephens-Dougan (Princeton), Leah Stokes (University of California), and Rocío Titiunik (Princeton).

I would love to write entries about them but the trouble is that there are hardly any secondary sources about them. This is a problem that came up yesterday: a Wikipedia Editor rejected a draft article about an academic because there aren’t enough secondary sources establishing their notability.

However, another Wikipedian hast just alerted me to the page Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It states: "Many scientists (...) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. (...) Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. (...) Academics meeting any one of the following conditions (...) are notable. (...) 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" (italics/bold in original).

Does that mean that we actually don't necessarily need secondary sources but can rely on the existence of prestigious awards to justify Wikipedia entries about academics? That would make things a lot easier. I think all the female scholars listed above received prestigious prizes for their work. I would be very grateful for any advice that you may have! MassAve74 (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I think it would be difficult to develop biographies on the basis of awards alone, unless the award ceremonies and write-ups contain extensive biographical information. Furthermore, reviewers may question the significance of academic awards unless they are specifically considered to be valid for sourcing purposes. In general, for living people we look for at least three independent secondary sources. You will find further information in the Primer mentioned above and in the other essays. Before I embark on a biography, I always make sure I first have three reliable sources which provide pertinent information. If you are in any doubt about a new draft, let me take a look at it and I might be able to help you out.--Ipigott (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Jennifer Froestal, you could begin by drawing on this profile and then include some of the assessments of her books. You can turn these up by searching Google for "jennifer forestal critical reviews". Let's see how it goes.--Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your reply! I really appreciate that you got back to me so quickly. That all makes sense. I will try and proceed as you suggest. All best, MassAve74 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MassAve74 I'd encourage you to write about full professors only or academics that have written multiple books (and received multiple critial reviews). Multiple critical reviews of multiple books is a requirement to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Jennifer Forestal is an assistant professor, so IMO she likely fails WP:NPROF - you can prove her notability via WP:GNG route or WP:NAUTHOR as mentioned earlier. Gheus (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, @Gheus! Great idea to search for critical reviews. I will also look out for additional independent sources, such as biographical profiles. Having said that, some assistant professors have already made a profound impact on their fields. It is usually a scholar's first book that makes the biggest contribution, because they often don't have time to write an equally important second book. MassAve74 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]