This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jess Wade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
|
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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Just flagging for regular editors of this page that today, 1 Oct 2023, the Guardian published an article about Jess Wade and her work here on Wikipedia - ‘Why are they not on Wikipedia?’: Dr Jess Wade’s mission for recognition for unsung scientists. I don't have time at the moment to see if there are edits to her page that should be made, but I wanted to leave this here in case other editors have time to look at it. - Dyork ( talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Jesswade88, Beccaynr, Schmarrnintelligenz, Zeromonk, and -sche:: Also pinging everyone who participated in Talk:Jess_Wade/Archive_1#Article_image(s). Beccaynr has proposed another image candidate, the Chicago image, left, presumably because a respected scientist should not be seen to have a sense of humor (former image, 2017, right). I don't like the proposed image because it's badly backlit so the face can't be seen, even the 2019 image in the previous discussion (q.v.) was better. Odds are good, of course, that our expressed opinions will be for naught, as I expect JW will show up and give her opinion which we'll just respect; but on the slight chance she doesn't:? -- GRuban ( talk) 05:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
As an initial matter, I added no/missing permission templates to the former image (both original and cropped), because permission from the image creator appears to be missing and the image may be protected by copyright, based on the "All photographs © The Photographic Unit Ltd 2023" statement on the image creator's website.
If permission is provided, I think it seems helpful to compare how Wade is typically portrayed, e.g. the recent Guardian article; Imperial College London faculty website listed in the infobox; Nature's 10 award, listed in infobox; an image posted with a 2019 Independent School Parent/Telegraph interview; other sources use stock imagery of female scientists, e.g. This physicist has written over 500 biographies of women scientists on Wikipedia; overall, available representations seem to indicate the prior image is not representative of how Wade is typically represented in the media, at her workplace, or by awarding institutions. I think according to WP:BLPIMAGE, it is appropriate for us to assess at the outset whether an image used in an infobox is an accurate representation of the subject, based on available sources. If it is, then I think this particular image may raise additional concerns in this particular context, but I think the accuracy issue would be worthwhile to address first. Thanks again, Beccaynr ( talk) 15:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is an alternative. Cullen328 ( talk) 19:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a storm in a teacup, but I'm not seeing any compelling policy-based reason being advanced that would favor using either of the proposed replacements in place of the professionally taken 2017 photo that's currently in the infobox. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include a list of every journals she's published in ? These are quite standard journals in the field, and this list takes a considerable amount of space without bringing value. The same goes for the list of her co-authors; without context, this adds nothing. 195.176.113.213 ( talk) 10:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jess Wade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
|
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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Just flagging for regular editors of this page that today, 1 Oct 2023, the Guardian published an article about Jess Wade and her work here on Wikipedia - ‘Why are they not on Wikipedia?’: Dr Jess Wade’s mission for recognition for unsung scientists. I don't have time at the moment to see if there are edits to her page that should be made, but I wanted to leave this here in case other editors have time to look at it. - Dyork ( talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Jesswade88, Beccaynr, Schmarrnintelligenz, Zeromonk, and -sche:: Also pinging everyone who participated in Talk:Jess_Wade/Archive_1#Article_image(s). Beccaynr has proposed another image candidate, the Chicago image, left, presumably because a respected scientist should not be seen to have a sense of humor (former image, 2017, right). I don't like the proposed image because it's badly backlit so the face can't be seen, even the 2019 image in the previous discussion (q.v.) was better. Odds are good, of course, that our expressed opinions will be for naught, as I expect JW will show up and give her opinion which we'll just respect; but on the slight chance she doesn't:? -- GRuban ( talk) 05:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
As an initial matter, I added no/missing permission templates to the former image (both original and cropped), because permission from the image creator appears to be missing and the image may be protected by copyright, based on the "All photographs © The Photographic Unit Ltd 2023" statement on the image creator's website.
If permission is provided, I think it seems helpful to compare how Wade is typically portrayed, e.g. the recent Guardian article; Imperial College London faculty website listed in the infobox; Nature's 10 award, listed in infobox; an image posted with a 2019 Independent School Parent/Telegraph interview; other sources use stock imagery of female scientists, e.g. This physicist has written over 500 biographies of women scientists on Wikipedia; overall, available representations seem to indicate the prior image is not representative of how Wade is typically represented in the media, at her workplace, or by awarding institutions. I think according to WP:BLPIMAGE, it is appropriate for us to assess at the outset whether an image used in an infobox is an accurate representation of the subject, based on available sources. If it is, then I think this particular image may raise additional concerns in this particular context, but I think the accuracy issue would be worthwhile to address first. Thanks again, Beccaynr ( talk) 15:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is an alternative. Cullen328 ( talk) 19:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a storm in a teacup, but I'm not seeing any compelling policy-based reason being advanced that would favor using either of the proposed replacements in place of the professionally taken 2017 photo that's currently in the infobox. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include a list of every journals she's published in ? These are quite standard journals in the field, and this list takes a considerable amount of space without bringing value. The same goes for the list of her co-authors; without context, this adds nothing. 195.176.113.213 ( talk) 10:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)