User talk:PerceptivePear
Welcome!
[edit]Hi PerceptivePear! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Ipigott, thanks a lot for the resources! I really appreciate it. PerceptivePear (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Possible conflict of interest
[edit]Hi there, PerceptivePear. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for creating Deborah Carr. As a new contributor, you cannot be expected to know about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which addresses contributions about yourself or your close contacts. I suggest you read up on the background and possibly identify yourself as a connected contributor. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again @Ipigott, thank you for your message and the warm welcome! I’d like to clarify that, while I’ve long admired Deborah Carr’s work, there is no conflict of interest on my part. I thoroughly reviewed publicly available information before drafting the article. As a first-time author, I understand my writing may not fully meet Wikipedia’s standards yet. I appreciate your suggestion and am considering whether opening the page for peer review could help ensure this article (and my future contributions) follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’d be grateful for any advice on addressing these concerns. Thanks again! PerceptivePear (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article looks like a resume for a T&P committee. The "Research" section is sourced mostly to her own work, and the first paragraph of "Writing", with the non-neutral claim "extensive record", is sourced to her own CV. That's not how we should write BLPs. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Drmies, I agree with your feedback. The source was indeed her CV, which is accessible through the institutional website. I will make an effort to diversify the sources moving forward. I really appreciate your suggestion—this is all extremely helpful to know as I’m still very new to Wikipedia. Thank you! PerceptivePear (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please use secondary sources to attest to the subject's achievements. That also goes for her books: the "references" now are links to the publisher, and if she is this noteworthy (I don't doubt it, BTW) then there should be reviews of those books in academic journals, which can both verify the validity of the information and the relevance/importance of her books. That, in turn, helps satisfy the very first item in WP:NACADEMIC. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your suggestions, especially regarding the use of secondary sources. I will make these changes soon. I appreciate your time and insight—thanks again! PerceptivePear (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please use secondary sources to attest to the subject's achievements. That also goes for her books: the "references" now are links to the publisher, and if she is this noteworthy (I don't doubt it, BTW) then there should be reviews of those books in academic journals, which can both verify the validity of the information and the relevance/importance of her books. That, in turn, helps satisfy the very first item in WP:NACADEMIC. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Drmies, I agree with your feedback. The source was indeed her CV, which is accessible through the institutional website. I will make an effort to diversify the sources moving forward. I really appreciate your suggestion—this is all extremely helpful to know as I’m still very new to Wikipedia. Thank you! PerceptivePear (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article looks like a resume for a T&P committee. The "Research" section is sourced mostly to her own work, and the first paragraph of "Writing", with the non-neutral claim "extensive record", is sourced to her own CV. That's not how we should write BLPs. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for suspecting a conflict of interest. I'm happy to see it's now been sorted out. Thanks for following up on recommendations concerning the article. It's now looking much better. If you intend to write more biographies of women, you might be interested in joining WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. You can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Let me know if you run into any difficulties. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I truly appreciate your feedback and am glad to hear the edits have made a positive impact. WikiProject Women in Red sounds like a wonderful initiative—I’ll definitely take a look. Thanks again for the recommendation! PerceptivePear (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)