Katrina Krämer (3 July 2019). "Female scientists' pages keep disappearing from Wikipedia – what's going on?". Chemistry World. Retrieved 5 July 2019. Jessica Wade, a physical chemist at Imperial College London, UK, who created both Phelps' and Tuttle's page, says out of the 600 articles she has written so far about female, black, minority ethnic or LGBTQ+ scientists, six have been deleted as they weren't deemed notable. But almost every single one is being scrutinised – particularly those on ethnic minority women, Wade says.
Cara Curtis (31 July 2019). "Wikipedia bios for women scientists are more likely to be flagged for removal". The Next Web. Retrieved 1 August 2019. A few months ago, Sarah Tuttle, an astrophysicist, tweeted how her Wikipedia page was flagged for deletion. This came after the online encyclopedia platform had removed Clarice Phelps', an African-American nuclear scientist, bio three times during Black History Month in February.
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 sourcedmust 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 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
Astrophysicist Sarah Tuttle speaks on "Dark Energy. Or, Hunting the Heffalump" in Austin in 2014
Methinks you mean https://vimeo.com/89974317. I grabbed one, but since the video is so dark, the resulting image once lightened is pretty grainy, enough so that I'm waiting for comments before daring to put it on the page. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? You seem to have found almost exactly the same frame I did, but kept it dark, rather than lightening. I would be fine with either. That said, the AfD is by no means a sure thing. --GRuban (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the AfD has gotten a lot better since yesterday, and this will likely survive, so we can risk decorating it. Honestly, I think the lighter photo is better at showing what she looks like, even if the lightening makes it look more grainy. --GRuban (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: You know... you are actually right. This was actually the sixth image capture I made and was the one I liked most. I can't believe I didn't even notice it's the same picture!!! –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, it doesn't look like a selfie to you? --valereee (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Hm, yeah, not from the laptop, the resolution is too high. But the arm placement, it's pretty selfyish...--valereee (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Honestly, no; it looks pretty good quality, with a shadowed background, and pretty obviously from the same "set" as her Twitter profile photo. Laptop selfies tend to be both messier due to the nature of where laptops tend to be placed, and distorted due to the nature of the camera. Though I guess it might be, I'm not a professional photo analyst or even photographer, my expertise is limited to seeing a fair number of amateur and professional photos on Wikimedia Commons. In any case, I do know that we do generally ask that article subjects who donate pictures specifically release them. She can also email OTRS to do that, but the backlog on that is months; especially since she's so responsive on Twitter, tweeting the release could be much faster. --GRuban (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have got Sarah load a new and original picture. This is the only route I have ever got to work. OTRS is so slow that its a race to find out who loses interest first. I was intrigued by GRuban's suggestion that tweeting a release would do. Is there ant precendent of this being accepted (as it would be a timely solution in future.) Victuallers (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering about the primary template that Slatersteven has chosen to add. What parts of the article are "improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source"? From what I can see, the primary sources that are used in the article conform to WP:PRIMARYCARE (which, after all, states that even a person's autobiography "can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person"). The mix between primary and other sources here seems to be fairly standard for similar biographies, so unless there is a specific reason not to, I would remove that template. Markus Pössel (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks a lot like merely being upset about the failed controversial AfD. {{notability}}, which would ordinarily be used to correctly describe the AfD outcome, doesn't apply because WP:NPROF is so much stricter than the GNG. I'm removing the tag. EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the template itself seems to be fairly explicit about when it should be applied, and I do not see those conditions being met here. Removing the tag seems indeed to be (have been) the correct course of action. Markus Pössel (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph near the end about gender discrepancy in astronomy paper citations is a bit confusing. I haven't read the article, but the <ref> goes to the abstract which only mentions papers led by a male or led by a female, not "1st authors". I could log in and read the article, but unless it is going to be cited rather than the abstract, I think that we should report what the source (abstract) says. Henry Hannon (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
