This page is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Corruption, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CorruptionWikipedia:WikiProject CorruptionTemplate:WikiProject CorruptionCorruption
This page is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
An earlier editor rejected this draft because it ‘sounded like an advertisement’ about the subject of the biographical page. A later editor requested slimming down the list of the subject’s publications, although that list which was intended to demonstrate the subject’s expertise and credibility and to counter the ‘puff piece’ concerns.
As a new contributor, I would appreciate advice from more seasoned community members re: threading the needle in contributing credibility-bolstering info to this bio page without apparently going overboard.
Hi there! I like where your instincts are at. An author with major publications is a great subject for an article.
However, what we Wikipedians want most is high-quality secondary sources--not written by the subject, but about her/her work. So while bios on her employers' websites and publications with she's authored are of some use, we want things like newspaper articles that back up these claims. Snowman304|talk23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at bios of comparable individuals in the same field, it seems like materials and press releases from the U.S. Government have been suitable to establish the person’s credibility, where press or newspaper coverage of them may not exist. For this particular individual, are the current academic sources referencing her credentials and the government materials establishing her titles and expertise insufficient? 73.132.26.62 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@safariscribe could you share your thoughts on the question above, and maybe expand on your feedback in the draft? I’d be grateful for your help.
Your comments in rejecting the draft say it requires more independent sources. I’m hoping you can help me make sense of this. I’ve been stuck on this draft, trying to figure out more appropriate sourcing and why the current White House, State Department, Congressional, academic institutions, and international organizations’ sources aren’t considered sufficiently credible or independent? Given she’s a policy official, those are the sources that generally publish content about her type of work or would reference her by name rather than “The White House said…” and “the State Department did…”
I’ve looked at pages of individuals who held just one of the positions she did (see below) and the sourcing seems comparable if not leaner. I’m really stuck on what particularly is lacking to prove this bio is credible. I’d really appreciate the advice!!
This draft has had me stumped. Next time I won’t pick a bio page to work on 😅
SafariScribe, I saw your comment on the draft saying "Doesn't meet WP:NPOL." While she's not a politician or a judge, I'd think her current position is equivalent in stature to an NPOL. Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD is a high position in a very significant intergovernmental organization with many member countries, including The United States. She's clearly seen as an expert worth quoting or interviewing in some of media pieces in the "Publications, remarks, and media" section (e.g., the NPR interview with her at the top Edited to add: though as I think about this more, perhaps that's not significant coverage of her, only significant coverage of the US international COVID response, though NPR clearly sees her as having expertise). In a Teahouse exchange, I recommended to Lfdigests that s/he comb though that section to pull out some of the media coverage to demonstrate her notability, but in the meantime, would you mind saying a bit more about why you think she doesn't meet the presumed notable standard? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
