| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Untitled
editI need help getting this article approved! Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated!Srcollier94 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi
editYou asked at #wikiwomeninred ....
- The article looks sound but confused that it says shes "the first" and later its "one of" - big difference
- The draft article process is voluntary
- Tone is a bit wordy - I knocked out quite a bit I think and lost very little info (I think)
- Asking at www.womeninred.org should get you help in hours where as the AfC process takes weeks
- I have moved it to main space as distinguished prof., lots of pubs and "first" should make her notable
Hope that helps - Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Victuallers, Your next to last point there is a bit inaccurate. While the review process may take weeks, we typically respond on our help desk within hours if not minutes (some of us don't have lives). Sulfurboy (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work Sulfurboy - it is true that replies can be quicker but many AfC reviews are "not good enough" even though some of the articles are well above average for mainspace with a few 3rd party refs and clear(ish) notability. Its prob. the best that can be done given the volume, but I'm sure we lose potentially good editors with e.g. not up to minimum inline standard (I thought we only needed one ref in extremis). We do try to hold hands with (a few) editors and help them in main space even though their spelling, grammar, layout, wiki knowledge etc etc may need improvement. Victuallers (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Tone concerns
editI think I've cleaned up tone concerns enough that it wouldn't warrant a tag. Although DGG may want to review it since it was the reason for the decline and because it was approved out of AfC in an unorthodox manner. There is still a very heavy reliance on primary sources and a couple of awards needs cites, so those tags have been applied. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
notability
editThe key notability is of having been president of the SAA. Our normal practice is that being the president of the leading national society in a person's field implies notability. I removed what I consider a littly fluffy, and I rather doubt that collaborating with... amounts to anything more than pur routine for any active person in the field, so it might be seen as name dropping. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC) .
Notability
editI added the notability template because most of the sources for this article are from University of North Carolina domains and I’m not sure this counts as “outside sources” for a living person who’s currently working for that university. The current article reads like a resume. 136.54.77.105 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)