Talk:Caroline Moore (academic)

Notable

Looks like a respected but otherwise MILL physician/medical researcher. Not seeing the notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Moore looks terrific at first, but then I started clicking on the citations. If Moore is the first female urologist Professor, then that is pretty cool, I guess. But the only citation for this is to a Eventbrite event? Who wrote that? There needs to be a much better citation than that. Then I looked at the statement "She has served as the science consultant for the science comedy Surgeon X", okay cool, but a quick look at that citation and you see that she is one of 15 science consultants for this science comedy and the way the Wikipedia page is written, it says "THE science consultant" what? And what is Surgeon X? That is not a notable science comedy at all, so why mention it. It feels like someone is trying to make Moore look notable. The rest of the article is impressive but it does not prove notability. If this was up for a AfD right now, the article as it stands right now would get a delete vote from me. Sgerbic (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Citations #11 and #14 have the exact same quote from Moore and the articles have the exact same photos used but are from different authors, Amit Malewar and Kate Wighton. I'm not understanding this at all? Sgerbic (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay one more thing that really was what set me looking into the other citations for Moore, I really really dislike when an editor uses the word "expert" without a citation. This was in the second sentence of the lede, we should not use that word lightly. I'm trying to assume good faith here ... but ... come on now. Sgerbic (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The citation is an invitation to her inaugural lecture, as that is where UCL have written she is the first woman prof of urology. Feel free to improve if you can. Jesswade88 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I went through the references to see what in-depth coverage there was in independent sources - my own comments are in the table below. As I see it, there are only three refs (11, 12, 14) that might even be considered. They talk about the research project she led, rather than about her. Of those, 11 and 14 seem to be paraphrasing the same press release. It does not seem to be enough to meet any of the criteria of NPROF to me. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference	Notability comments
1.  a b "Professor Caroline Moore Inaugural Lecture". Eventbrite. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	Not independent – Eventbrite summaries are normally supplied by the subject.
2.  a b "Caroline Moore - Consultant Urological Surgeon London - LUA". www.lua.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	Not independent – published by the subject’s employer; such summaries are often supplied by the subject.
3.  a b c "Frontiers of Oncology | Caroline Moore". Retrieved 2019-03-30.	Not independent – published by the subject’s employer; such summaries are often supplied by the subject.
4.  "Movember Global Outcomes Project | Macmillan Survivorship Research Group | University of Southampton". www.southampton.ac.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	? The status of this one is not clear – it reads like a press release.
5.  "Professor Caroline Moore". www.uclh.nhs.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	Not independent – published by the subject’s employer; such summaries are often supplied by the subject.
6.  Caroline M. Moore; Nicola L.Robertson; Nasr Arsanious; Thomas Middleton; Arnauld Villers; Laurence Klotze; Samir S.Taneja; Mark Emberton (January 2013). "Image-Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Derived Targets: A Systematic Review". www.sciencedirect.com. 63 (1): 125–140. Retrieved 2019-03-30. reproduced in Science Direct	Not independent – the author is the first author of this paper.
7.  a b Moore, Caroline Monitoring and treating prostate cancer on YouTube 10 July 2018	Not independent – the author put out this YouTube video
8.  a b Moore, Caroline M.; Kasivisvanathan, Veeru; Eggener, Scott; Emberton, Mark; Fütterer, Jurgen J.; Gill, Inderbir S.; Grubb Iii, Robert L.; Hadaschik, Boris; Klotz, Laurence. "Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group". European Urology. 64 (4): 544–552. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030. ISSN 1873-7560. PMID 23537686.	Not independent – the author is the first author of this paper.
9.  Bass, Edward James; Freeman, Alex; Jameson, Charles; Punwani, Shonit; Moore, Caroline M; Arya, Manit; Emberton, Mark; Ahmed, Hashim Uddin (October 2018). "Prostate cancer diagnostic pathway: Is a one-stop cognitive MRI targeted biopsy service a realistic goal in everyday practice? A pilot cohort in a tertiary referral centre in the UK". BMJ Open. 8 (10): e024941. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024941. ISSN 2044-6055. PMC 6224764. PMID 30361408.	Not independent – the author is an author of this paper.
10.  "MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis could change clinical practice | UCLH Biomedical Research Centre". www.uclhospitals.brc.nihr.ac.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	Not independent – published by the subject’s employer.
11.  Malewar, Amit (2018-07-05). "Prostate cancer ultrasound treatment as effective as surgery or radiotherapy". Tech Explorist. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	(See also 14) Talks about the importance of the study and mentions the subject’s role in it, but apart from that there is just a quote from her.
12.  "Study finds prostate MRI scans both increase detection of cancer and reduce over-diagnosis". www.birmingham.ac.uk. 19 March 2018. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	Published by a university that collaborated.  Talks about the importance of the study and mentions the subject’s role in it, but apart from that there is just a quote from her.
13.  a b Moore, Caroline M. "True NTH UK – Post Surgical Follow up". Health Research Authority. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	Not independent – written by the subject.
14.  a b Wighton, Kate (4 July 2018). "Prostate cancer ultrasound treatment as effective as surgery or radiotherapy". Imperial News. Imperial College London. Retrieved 2019-03-30.	See comments for 11. Very similar to 11 – same heading and sub-heading, even the same photo, and published one day apart – they seem to be different articles based on the same press release.
15.  "Our Team – SurgeonX". Retrieved 2019-03-30.	No depth – the subject is included among a list of 15 “science consultants” for this series of comic books.

Bigging up

Aside from the sourcing issues mentioned above, I've spotted similar problems in this article to those in that for Rylie Green, where there seems to either be "bigging up" of the subject or just sloppy writing. I've fixed one of those, which before my intervention gave the reader the impression that she led a HIFU study and implied that it was a special outcome because of its 100% five-year survival rate. The source paints a very different picture: it was several teams spread over six hospitals, she was not the lead and the 100% figure was the same achieved by other treatment methods.

I can't help but think that less haste might make for more speed in creating these articles. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability tag

I reinstated a notability tag a few hours ago because of the discussion above and because the earlier removal of one was for an erroneous rationale - professors at UCL are not inherently notable under WP:NPROF, nor are any other professors unless they hold a named chair. I'm not unduly fussed whether the tag is for WP:GNG or NPROF as a cursory glance at the above discussion suggests that either would apply. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added more references, including board membership of the European Association of Urology and winning an award for a recent The BMJ paper. She has hundreds of citations for each of her papers, as can be seen on her Google Scholar profile (https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=0wG6b20AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao. This is an inappropriate tag. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That may be the case but you have to show it and it doesn't alter the fact that your rationale for removing the tag was inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As you will have noticed, the 'appropriateness' of the rationale for removal is up for debate. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that it was incorrect, hence my reinstatement. There have been similar poor arguments advanced in recent AfDs, so it is better than Jesswade88 realises now than continues on the same path. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is that the perceived correctness of the removal rests on your disputed interpretation of the guidelines so should not be stated as fact. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

And your is the reverse. The sourcing doesn't stack up, per the analysis above, and it is indeed wrong to say that professors are inherently notable. If she wanted to say "professors in the UK are inherently notable" then that is what should have been said, although I'm still dubious based on past AfDs. NPROF is clear that professors per se are only inherently notable if they hold a named chair. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPROF says that The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, luckily for us that is what professorship in the UK demonstrates. For example check out the job descriptions for professors at the universities of Leicester and Exeter which respectively list An outstanding record of research achievement in Archaeology, evidenced by an established international reputation and publications in peer reviewed journals and other outlets of international standing and Be a leading international authority in the subject as requirements. And for UCL specifically, here's a JD for a professorship which includes the requirement that the post-holder will have "An outstanding track record of publishing world-leading research. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that has never been a successful argument in any AfD I have seen. Professorships in the UK are not considered de facto notable in that light. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"It's always been that way" doesn't disagree materially with the points above. What about the job descriptions do you find that doesn't meet WP:NPROF? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because other universities in other disciplines said that is what they ideally want in a candidate does not establish anything at all about this case. In particular, it does not provide the independent reliable sources that are required. Nor does it show how she compares to the "average professor test" - where are the sources which have evaluated her work and show that "this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field"?--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As you can see from the above examples, there is a certain amount of consistency between the base requirements, programmatic specifics aside. A professor at Dundee University or a professor at Cardiff University are both expected to be world-leading in their field. When that is part of the requirements of become a professor in the UK, that means that you sail past the "average professor test" – an helpful name, since there is a world of difference in how the terms are used in the US and the UK. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The only way to test this would be at an AfD. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You have not yet advanced any reasoning to support your belief. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

We can go round in circles like this all day. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Well if we're done with this futility, do you mind if I remove the notability tag? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The question is not resolved by any means. I think it is wonderful that you think so highly of the British system, but the claim that every professor at every university in the country is a world leader is getting a bit ridiculous, and it certainly bears no relation to the requirements of NPROF. I'm starting to think that Sitush is right - the only way to test this would be to take it to AfD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous in what way? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Alongside being the UK's first woman professor of urology, Moore has an impressive publication record (https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=0wG6b20AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) and is on the Board of the European Association of Urology. She *is* notable. Jesswade88 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This is getting to be circular and quite frankly ridiculous. I'm looking at Caroline Moore and only Caroline Moore and am increasingly concerned with why no one has addressed Citation #20. She is NOT "the" science consultant, she is one of many. And the science comic Surgeon X isn't notable. I know this is something I could remove, and it seems to be such a little thing, but it really bothers me because it does not appear to be a mistake due to rushing. That with all the other concerns I wrote about above makes me really question the rest of the citations. Gronk Oz has made some very important points and we need to deal with those. If we can't have a responsible discussion here on talk, then I agree with Sitush, this needs to go to AfD. And I see that Jesswade88 has responded while I was writing this. You keep saying that she is "the UK's first woman professor of urology" and the only citation you have offered us is to a Eventbrite citation. That is a pretty big claim, we need a much better citation. Sgerbic (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I can say after years of watching and participating in academic-and-educator AfD's that it is extraordinarly rare that anyone with a GS h-index of 32 would fail WP:PROF. Nor is tagging an article with a "may not meet the general notability guideline" banner meaningful when we wouldn't even look to the GNG to establish notability in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Jesswade88 What's up with this snarky comment you wrote on the edit history of your last edit? "changed the > a (science consultant) to please other editors. Very unclear why she is tagged as not-notable with her publication record, but I guess it's because I made the page."Sgerbic (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: I agree that an h-index of 32 would be indirect evidence of meeting NPROF 1. I can't find that claim in the article, and I can't see any source there that supports it. Where are you seeing that?--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In the Google Scholar profile linked above. The Web of Science, which requires a subscription and is more restrictive, gives her an h-index of 24, which is in line with the usual disparity between it and GS, and would also pass WP:PROF#C1. It credits her with six papers that are officially "highly cited" ("in the top 1% of the academic field of Clinical Medicine"), one of which is "hot" (top 0.1%). I'd call this an uncontroversial pass of WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Agreed: this needs to be incorporated into the article so the basis for her notability is stated there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Moore's role in the PRECISION study

Currently the article says that Moore "led the Prostate Evaluation for Clinically Important Disease: Sampling Using Image Guidance or Not? (PRECISION) study..." The only source is the paper itself, but that does not have Moore as the principal author - instead she is listed as the 41st author. That does not make it clear that she led the project. Are there any sources that support the claim, or should it be changed to say that she was a team member?--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I can’t find Moore mentioned in the award brochure. It says that the lead author for the paper is Veera Kasivisvanathan, who is quoted in the award blurb.Sgerbic (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

She was at least senior author. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Good find: at last we have a source to confirm her role.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• St-George s-Hospital.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)