Talk:Ruth A. M. Schmidt

New content

New year, new content. Other editors are welcome! Thanks especially to 97198 (talk) for originally writing the article. I have nominated it for GA status in honor of the Women Who Rock challenge of July, 2018.AnaSoc (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of article

On a user talk page, Flyer22 Reborn (talk) questioned the title of the article. Instead of responding on the user talk page, I am addressing the issue here on the article talk page.

"Per whichever is the WP:Common name, I think you might want to take a look at the recent move of the Ruth Schmidt article you created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)"

My response:

The name of the article fits the five criteria. 1) recognizability--Schmidt published, researched, worked, and taught using Ruth A. M. Schmidt as indicated in the sources cited. 2) naturalness--people looking for the geologist will look for Ruth A. M. Schmidt; 3) precision--Ruth A. M. Schmidt is the most precise name for the person, one that distinguishes this Ruth Schmidt from the others; 4) conciseness--Ruth A. M. Schmidt is the most concise identifier, as opposed to Ruth Anna Marie Schmidt; 5) consistency--the majority of the sources cited use Ruth A. M. Schmidt. Most notably, the UAA/APU Ruth A. M. Schmidt papers collection uses that name, as does the guide to the collection. All of the biographical notes and Schmidt's obituary refer to her as Ruth A. M. Schmidt either in the title or in the opening sentences. Finally, Schmidt herself used Ruth A. M. Schmidt, signing her passport, letters, and job application that way.AnaSoc (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Just now saw this: Yes, I alerted the creator of the article (97198) to the fact that you changed the title of this article. Not sure how you became aware of the matter. Either way, there are a number of scholars who use their full name, but that does not stop us from going with the shorter name they are better known by. 97198 clearly did not feel that Schmidt's whole name was needed as the title. You speak of other Ruth Schmidts, and yet I see no disambiguation page for other Ruth Schmidts. What other WP:Notable Ruth Schmidts are there? You offered no proof of her full name being her common name. At least now you are aware of our WP:Common name policy. What you should have done was start a WP:Requested moves discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Concise is for "Ruth Schmidt." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Since sources in the article use "Ruth A. M. Schmidt," however, I don't see an issue with the current title, other than that it's unnecessarily lengthy. Readers would have no difficulty finding this article when searching under "Ruth Schmidt" or "Ruth A. M. Schmidt." When the article used the shorter title, her full name was right there for everyone to see with a search (because of its inclusion in the lead). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It was not necessary to begin a WP:Requested moves discussion because I expected no controversy and the move met all of the criteria. Schmidt is better known as Ruth A. M. Schmidt, not just Ruth Schmidt, as the sources I cited describe. AnaSoc (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your sources do not describe "Ruth A. M. Schmidt" as the common name, but I understand what you are stating about using that name, given the sources. As I explained above, I feel that you unnecessarily lengthened the name. There was no problem with this article going with the more concise title. You seem to have looked at WP:CRITERIA after I pointed to WP:Common name. With regard to naturalness, it is your belief that readers are more likely to type in "Ruth A. M. Schmidt", rather than "Ruth Schmidt." I just do not agree with that, which is why I asked, "What other WP:Notable Ruth Schmidts are there?" She is also known as Ruth Schmidt, which is why this article was titled that. Time and time again, people have settled for typing in the shorter version of a name instead of the whole name when researching something. WP:Concise notes that "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness." And I'm not arguing to omit for conciseness. What I am stating, in part, is that what you did is similar to renaming the Jean-Paul Sartre article to "Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre." (Note: I said "similar to," not "the same as.") In any case, I already stated that "I don't see an issue with the current title, other than that it's unnecessarily lengthy." I am not the one who felt it was necessary to start this discussion. I left a note specifically for 97198 to look into this. If 97198 is fine with the name change, I don't expect anyone else (or a number of people anyway) to question it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruth A. M. Schmidt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 07:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your submission :). In this review, I might make some small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such) and small changes in sentence structure. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. I'm new to the reviewing process, so I might have to take a bit more time, but I will do my best to have a reasonable quick assessment. Femkemilene (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Most of the article is clear and concise, except some of the lines below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Very meticulous use of sources

   C. It contains no original research:

   There is heavy reliance on primary sources, which is okay, but for some statements I can't exclude that original research has been done. The secondary sources are used very well, so I assume that similar care is taken with primary sources (which I cannot access), but I will not make a decision here until later. In the line-by-line section, I included a few statements where I suspect some OR may have been done.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Did a sample of 10 sentences and only Wikipedia/wikipedia mirrors showed up.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Line-by-line comments

You don't have to address all of these comments before the article is considered a Good Article. I will mark sentences that seem to fail the criteria with a

• After her death in 2014, she was recognized as a philanthropist. Not before her death? The section Death and legacy states that she did some philanthropy before her death as well.
• led to two investigations against Schmidt by the Department of Interior This sentence is followed by 6 references. It is easily verifiable, so one or two should suffice
• and inorganic chemistry at the Hunter College of the City of New York and similar references Maybe this is my inexperience, but I don't understand the page numbering after the reference. Do you use both pages?
• Beginning work on her dissertation in 1941, she completed her dissertation in 1948 and graduated with her doctorate degree in geology in 1948.[9] Repetition of the words her dissertation and I feel that her doctorate should be a doctorate.
• Schmidt competed with 84 other candidates to win a $500 fellowship from New York City Panhellenic to conduct advanced study of the application of radiography to paleontology I think this sentence can be interpreted in two ways (she won or only competed)
• Her passports[15] bear the stamps of two dozen countries Is the original research or do other sources also note that she was well-traveled?
• organizing the Lexicon Project (map names) in Washington Could you clarify what this means?
• Letters in the Ruth A. M. Schmidt papers collection[21][22] indicate that by 1961, Schmidt had become unhappy Is this original research? Did you draw (the obvious) conclusion that she was unhappy from the letters. Is there a secondary source that draws those conclusions?
• In 1954, Schmidt received another letter from the Department of Interior advising her that she was again being investigated Again, one or two references suffice
• Schmidt was again cleared of the charges Again, one or two references suffice.
• There are carbon copies of 17 such letters of request among Schmidt's papers in the UAA/APU Archives and Special Collections. Supported by secondary sources (within or outside of the archive) or counted yourself? If the latter, that would be OR.

In the honours and awards section, I cannot determine whether all the the information is sufficiently focussed (3B). I am doubtful whether the following are sufficiently notable to be included in the article

• The Living Room Floor Map and Debating Society "informs all Persons that between 1969 and 1972 Ruth Schmidt was a charter member of a group of Alaska Conservation Valiants who diligently pursued and developed the initial major themes for ANCSA [Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act] Sec. 17d2 land withdrawals and the subsequent Presidential Proclamations for Alaska National Monuments and National Wildlife Refuges," December 1, 1978 (quite likely not notable
• Who's Who of American Women, 22nd edition 2000/2001 Millennium Edition
• Who's Who in Frontier Science and Technology, First Edition, 1984/85
• Public Citizen: certificate of Recognition for Contributing Member (n.d.)
• Geological Society of America (GSA): 50-year Fellow, October 9, 1996. Having read the source, it is unclear to me what this means.
• Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey Service Award: in recognition of 20 years of service in the Government of the United States, December 31, 1963

Thanks so much for undertaking the review! I will address your points in the next couple of days. Last week, I was able to locate a photograph of Schmidt and some other women geologists that was published by the USGS, making it public domain. I will upload that as well.AnaSoc (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Femkemilene and AnaSoc: There has been no action on this page for nearly 3 months. Maybe it's time to fail it? RockMagnetist(talk) 22:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I will fail it if I don't get a reply within the next couple of days. Femkemilene (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)