Talk:Marisa Carrasco

Sourcing and notability

There are nine self references that are not just primary but self-published and listed under a "Selected publications" section and not "References". The policies and guidelines concerning Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons cannot be trumped by an academic exception. Concerning that: The bottom line of WP:PROF is that it must:

• 1)- Adhere to sourcing such as verifiability, and other policies and guidelines such as NPOV, and original research and,
• 2)- "The professor test": "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?".

This article needs to be checked against the criterion for inclusion. Otr500 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Per a discussion with another editor I looked around. Probably a good reason to have BEFORE but I found articles by the subject in the Journal of Vision, PLOS Computational Biology, Behavioral and Brain Functions, Autism Research, Cognition and Emotion, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Psychological Science, Journal of Neuroscience, Current Biology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Progress in Brain Research, and more.

With many publications, a former Psychology Department Chair, and a current lab under her name (Carrasco lab) I would offer notability is beyond reproach.

• Comments: This article relies on many peer-reviewed publications centered in the particular fields that are reliable. Removed tag after review and seeing more eyes on the article. If there are still neutrality concerns we can address them here and if unresolved in discussions restore the tag. Otr500 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There still needs to be independent references about her for the biographical information in the article. It also seems pretty standard to have a list of publications by a published author in such an article, which is a different thing to the references for a biography. At the moment, the two seem confused. Melcous (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I don't disagree about secondary independent sources, and I didn't get to look yet for other sources as a heart attack sort of slows things down.

Here is some on these types of articles as I have seen on a quick look. SCHOLARSHIP states: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.", with a point to watch as "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view". Almost all medical type references are primary sources. MEDREV advises to respect secondary sources and use them when available, it does not "advise" against usage and there is no timeline (see examples) so this can be undetermined. Independent reliable sources can be "highly cited scholarly publications", "peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books", and the rest can be read under "Specific criteria notes".

These are "guidelines" and under these and PROF educators, scholars, and even teachers can qualify for articles (such as above), and under these they give exceptions to the GNG guidelines. SOURCE is a policy and states "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.".

I see relatively newer company articles, that pass AFD because of "reliable independent sources", through consensus, and the sources are news reports, press releases, or even advertisement. If there is a dilemma on sourcing I will defer to those that err on the side of improving Wikipedia. I could likely have a better chance in arguing IGNORE in these cases. I actually wish more editors would take a tougher stance on unsourced articles, especially BLP's. Concerning this: BLPSPS states: "Never use self-published sources—..."unless written or published by the subject of the article.". BLPSELFPUB covers more on this as does BLPREMOVE.

I would prefer these type articles over some like Aurore Trayan. That subject placed 59th overall in individual archery, 4th-place in the women's French team archery, finally winning the "individual FITA compound women championships in 2008". This article has one sports related source and the subject one thing that "might" be notable. Probably a great article if one is not concerned with sources or is a toxophilite. I might be more understanding if the subject was a member of the "1400 Club".

NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." A "lack" of a view, one way or the other, does not necessarily indicate that there is bias. Prudent editorial judgement dictates conservatism towards privacy so an inappropriate NPOV tag could indicate an issue where none existed.

If you have any particular insight on BLP source confusion please let me know. A scientist, investigator, or researcher is not actually considered a "published author" just for the articles or papers they write or submissions to Academic journals. That is sort of part of "the job". Now, If I see where a work is in a publication where the "author" pays to have it "published" that is different. That would be like a "poet" paying to have poems published (every "poet" pays a fee and receives a book with their poem in it) which to me is a scam. Have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)