Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Berko Gleason

Jean Berko Gleason

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Jean Berko Gleason found that children can pluralize wug, conjugate spow, and identify quirky dogs?

5x expanded by CassandraRo (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 17:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

• The article was expanded within the time period, and the hook and subject matter is quite interesting (do to my curiosity I ended up having to look up the wug test). However, most of the article relies on primary sources written by Gleason. It needs analysis by third-party sources to demonstrate notability. Also, most of the article essentially just gives abstracts of her research. They need to be summarized better and have third-party sources demonstrating notability.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review, but there seems to be some confusion here. You're confusing notability (which is part of the test for whether an article should exist at all) with the question of what goes in the article -- article content need not be notable, only the subject of the article. And while, in general, content should be drawn from secondary sources, descriptions of a researcher's work is routinely cited directly to their research papers. (As to the subject's notability, that's abundantly established by the sources cited in the lead and bio sections, and all the biographical facts are indeed cited to appropriate secondary sources.)

As a result the banners you added are not appropriate. Nonetheless it would be desirable (though not necessary for DYK) for some improvement to be made. Unfortunately I missed that, after long delay, something had finally been done here (not your fault -- you're the first person who did anything!) and now all of a sudden several things I nominated are getting attention all at once. Further, I'm not the one who expanded that article so I'll ping that editor. EEng (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• The top two banners added are perfectly appropriate. The article is underreferenced (not even near the "1 citation per paragraph" minimum at the supplementary guidelines) and about 80% cited to her papers, which is undesirable because 1) it suggests that nobody else has commented on her views, countered them, or analysed them, and 2) it is fundamentally incapable of presenting a neutral POV, as it is only from one person. She's notable enough to survive an AFD, but with the state of the article now I wouldn't be surprised if somebody nominated. That you rejected my closing (I expected this, sadly) with the statement of "Bullshit" is another matter, for wider discussion at WT:DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability? Are you kidding? The subject's status as a Fellow of AAAS and APA, her editorship of Language, her citation count [1], her authorship of the standard text in the field -- any one of these confers notability per WP:NACADEMICS. Oh, wait -- did I mention she's considered one of the founders of the entire field of psycholinguistics?

Maybe I didn't mention it, but the article does -- in fact it says all those things except the citation counts. If you're unfamiliar with NACADEMICS, that's OK, but what's not OK is that you don't seem to know there are things you don't know, and go around making pronouncements like "with the state of the article now I wouldn't be surprised if somebody nominated [for deletion]". And if you knew what a festschrift is (mentioned in the article) you wouldn't embarrass yourself by suggesting the possibility that "nobody else has commented on her views, countered them, or analysed" her work.

You say that the top two banner items are appropriate. They are not. What they say is:

• This biographical article relies on references to primary sources.
• This biographical article needs additional citations for verification

All the biographical material is cited, though it looks like paragraph breaks have been inserted so that you have to read forward to the next paragraph to find the cite callout, so I've duplicated the cite callouts at the end of each paragraph. As to "relies on primary sources", an academic's personal homepage, hosted by her department, is acceptable for routine, uncontroversial CV-type statements, such as positions held. (Please don't make me go dig up the guideline on this.)

Re your "1 citation per paragraph minimum", what WP:Did_you_know/Additional_rules#Other_supplementary_rules_for_the_article says is

The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.

A "rule of thumb" is not an absolute "minimum" that an article is or isn't "even near", and articles aren't quantitatively "underreferenced" or "overreferenced" -- rather they either have appropriate citations where needed (and that might be many or few, depending) or they don't. This one does. Next you'll be turning MOS:PARAGRAPHS's general reminder --

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read.

-- into one of those high-school cookie-cutter rules like, "Every paragraph must have between three and five sentences."

If I seem pissed off it's because I am. You just pulled the same stuff at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Widener_Library, where you quibbled about stuff such as in which sections of the article various images appeared. And yes, sadly, it's bullshit.

EEng (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

EEng (talk · contribs) left a note on my talk page asking for a second opinion here. As he already clearly stated, she passes WP:PROF in at least four ways: AAAS and APA fellows (criterion 3), president of a notable academic society (criterion 6), and heavily cited academic publications (top publication cited over 2000 times according to Google scholar, and some 14 publications cited over 100 times each, well past the usual threshold for criterion 1 according to the precedent of many hundreds of AfDs). Notability is not only clear and obvious, but well demonstrated within the text of the article. If that's the only reason for holding up this DYK, then it should not be held up. The statement of the reviewer about "not being surprised if nominated" for AfD is misleading — I would not be surprised either, given past behavior of some Wikipedia editors — but anyone who made such a nomination would be in for a severe trout-slapping by the regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators.

As for the other concerns: the only issue I see is that there are still a couple of paragraphs (a small fraction of the whole article) that don't have any inline citations. This is generally considered inadequate at DYK — the minimum standard is one footnote per paragraph — but most of the article is well-referenced and it shouldn't be any trouble to add a couple more to fill these out. This is an appropriate reason to delay the nom until it is fixed, but highly inappropriate as a reason for the DYKno full denial given above. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• The issue is not only that the article is underreferenced, but that it depends (or depended, at least) almost exclusively on citations to her books and articles to discuss her ideas. As I said before, that is suboptimum owing to the possibility of being both POV and WP:UNDUE. For somebody as widely cited as Gleason, there should be some third-party sources discussing her ideas... maybe reviews of her books, responses to her article, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) EEng, no matter how you slice it, the inline source citations in the entire Research section are problematic in what they cover. Only the first sentences of paragraphs there are cited, if they have any citation at all, which leaves the vast majority of the material in the remainder of every paragraph uncited. This is bad practice for a Wikipedia article. It might be a placement issue—do the inline cites belong at the end of these paragraphs rather than the beginning, and should they be repeated for the subsequent uncited paragraphs?—but something needs to be done here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• @EEng: I don't object to the article citing her work directly. The problem I see is that nearly all of the article relies ONLY on that, with no third-party analysis. I was actually surprised by that, considering how important Gleason is.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Side note: It's obvious just from some of the titles in the bibliography that there's lots and lots that's been written about her work; absolutely the article would be improved by incorporating such comment; and no doubt someday someone will do that -- I might even have done so by now, had my time and psychic energy not been so completely sapped by all this fuss about primary sources and so on. But incorporating such additional material isn't a requirement for DYK, because (as explained once again below) the material currently in the article is already adequately sourced. EEng (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, BMS, Family:

Just as killing isn't always murder, primary sources aren't always unacceptable, because context matters. For example, secondary sources aren't needed to give a plot summary of a work of fiction; it can be based directly on the work itself -- the primary source. Similarly, a straightforward abstract of what a research paper says (as opposed to how important it is, whether it's more convincing than other people's research, etc. etc.) needs no secondary source, but can be can be based directly on that research paper.

But don't take my word for this -- take a look at J._Robert_Oppenheimer#Scientific_work, an FA:

• Oppenheimer also made important contributions to the theory of cosmic ray showers and started work that eventually led to descriptions of quantum tunneling. In 1931 he co-wrote a paper on the "Relativistic Theory of the Photoelectric Effect" with his student Harvey Hall,in which, based on empirical evidence, he correctly disputed Dirac's assertion that two of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom have the same energy.
• In the late 1930s Oppenheimer became interested in astrophysics, probably through his friendship with Richard Tolman, resulting in a series of papers. In the first of these, a 1938 paper co-written with Robert Serber entitled "On the Stability of Stellar Neutron Cores", Oppenheimer explored the properties of white dwarfs.
• This was followed by a paper co-written with one of his students, George Volkoff, "On Massive Neutron Cores", in which they demonstrated that there was a limit, the so-called Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, to the mass of stars beyond which they would not remain stable as neutron stars and would undergo gravitational collapse.
• Finally, in 1939, Oppenheimer and another of his students, Hartland Snyder, produced a paper "On Continued Gravitational Attraction", which predicted the existence of what are today known as black holes.

I repeat: the Oppenheimer article is an FA. Observe:

(1) These statements about the content of Oppenheimer's research are cited to his (primary-source) research papers -- no secondary source needed (though of course it's OK to work from a secondary source if that's more convenient). Citation to a research paper, for a description of the content of that paper, is perfectly OK.

(2) Each citation comes in the middle of the narration of the research it contained, just at the point where the paper itself is mentioned -- after which the text continues with the details of what the paper said. This is not as common as placing the cite callout completely after everything it covers, but it's certainly OK, because a reasonably alert reader can be expected to understand what's going on.

This is a good time to point out that, though I did some work on the bio section a long time ago, it was another editor (who seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, or perhaps is just scared away by the ridiculous goings on here at DYK) who carried out the recent expansion by adding the research sections -- all I did was nominate, and now I have to face this shitstorm of misguided bossiness. So with respect to (2) above, I didn't put the cites where they are, and I've now moved them to the end of each paragraph to reduce by one the points at issue here. But -- I'm sorry, it must be said -- that here again, as with notability, you guys are absolutely certain about something you completely misunderstand.

So unless you will now tell us that DYKs must meet higher standards for citation than do FAs, please stop embarassing yourself.

EEng (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have NO PROBLEM with how the primary sources are used in the article. But I think that there should be more content summarizing what is found in third-party sources. That is all.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be more content summarizing what's found in the third-party sources too. But what we disagree on is whether that must happen in order for this article to satisfy DYK rules. It doesn't -- see below. And above. And below. And above. EEng (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• EEng is talking to me. You seem to be "embarassing (sic) yourself" in that you've completely missed my point. I don't recall saying that we should not cite her papers when discussing her views. I've said we need balance, which can only be provided with third-party responses to her theories. I.e. there should be additional citations from "third-party sources discussing her ideas... maybe reviews of her books, responses to her article" (as I've said above) Or are you saying "it's okay to have 60% of an article cited entirely to primary sources"?

Furthermore, comparing her with Oppenheimer (a physicist) is like comparing apples and oranges. Firstly, in the humanities, a theory can be challenged by another mainstream theory without being considered entirely wrong by experts in the field (just look at the plethora of literary theories out there that are still in use), whereas (AFAIK) in physics this is not true. Secondly, the percentage is completely skewed. Give or take 60% of the content in Gleason's article versus what, 5% in Oppenheimer's article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• That being said, you've made some good progress with the referencing. Just finish off those citation needed and clarification needed tags, add a few tertiary references supporting the more controversial aspects of her research, and this should be golden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• 60% of Gleason's article relies only on primary sources, because 60% of the article is material (description of the content of her research papaers) which is of the kind that is permitted to rely only on primary sources. So yes, that's OK. The reasons only 5% of Oppenheimer's article are: he had a short research career (publishing only 5 papers after WWII); he had a complex life that's been covered in multiple full-length bios (so his article is five times the length of Gleason's, making the research section shorter as a percentage); and most of his research is discussed at length in other articles on those topics. None of that is true of Gleason so your talk of percentages is a red herring.
• Your talk of theories and challenges is largely unintelligible, but you seem to be saying that citing a research paper for a description of its content is OK in physics, but not OK in psycholinguistics, because physics never has UNDUE or POV problems, whereas psycholinguistics (which you seem to think is a "humanity", which it is not -- it's part social science and part natural science) does has such problems. Are you kidding? All fields, even physics, have such potential problems.
• Therefore, your attempt to distinguish Oppenheimer's field vs. Gleason's field, to justify requiring different citation approaches for them, is specious. We are therefore back where we started: you can't explain why the citation approach used in the Gleason article (i.e. citing to a research papers directly as the only support for what that papers says -- not whether it's a fabulous theory, or other evaluation and so on) -- which you say is insufficient -- is exactly the approach used in the FA Oppenheimer article.
• Your continued talk about UNDUE is absurd. There's no "due weight of competing views" in saying what's in a research paper, because ... well, what's in the paper is what's in the paper. There are no "competing views" on that. If I want to say that the paper displaced older theories, or was of fundamental importance to the field, I'd need a secondary source for that.
• DYK rules say an article should be free of "dispute tags", and that's a good idea. But somewhere along the way the idea took hold that , , and are dispute tags. They are not. Saying, "We'll need a cite for this ... this could be written more clearly ... I guess this source will do for now but in the long run let's find a better one" is nothing like . Requiring that and so on banished from DYKs has caused a HUGE amount of unnecessary and useless expenditure of effort that could be better invested elsewhere.
• It's one of the pathologies of DYK that it demands a lot of work from persons (i.e. nominators) who may not be in a very good position to do such work, instead of using the article's DYK appearance to attract people who are in a good position to do such work. If you guys would get over your fetish for forcing DYKs to present themselves as all shiny and perfect, then here's what might happen... the article is linked from the main page with a few cite-needed and please-improve tags here and there. Some graduate student sees the hook, looks at the article, and thinks, "Wow! I can supply those cites and improve the presentation." Voilà! We have a new, enthusiastic editor contributing! Instead, you want me to spend my time doing something I'm ill-equipped to do, leaving nothing left for the graduate student to do.
• I'll say it again: I didn't expand the article, I know nothing about psycholinguistics, and I don't have the sources. If I did have the sources there would be no need for this discussion -- I'd happily add the sources. But I don't have them, and I don't have the time to run to the library just because you don't understand the finer points of Wikipedia citation.
• Wow. You noticed I misspelled embarrassing. Score a point for you!

EEng (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article looks a lot better now, thank you. There are a couple cite needed and clarification needed tags, but for the most part those shouldn't keep the article off DYK. The only major issue I see is the claim "both of these were major matters of theoretical controversy at the time." That does need a source, or else should be removed.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• @ 3family6: I have removed the offending clause; it can be reinstated at any time if/when a citation is found. I found only one disambig link and corrected it. I agree that the clarification tags should not keep the article off DYK. --Storye book (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Unfortunately so much time has been absorbed by the debate above that I haven't had much time to actually copyedit the research sections, which really need it. (I also had somehow missed 3family6's initial comments two weeks ago, which is why nothing happened all that time). I'd like to beg another week to improve the article before review -- why, I might even have time to go to the library and scare up more secondary sources for the research section! EEng (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Can a more experienced DYK reviewer confirm if it is acceptable to allow User:EEng another week to clean up the article?--¿3family6 _contribs 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am happy to confirm that EEng can safely delay this nom for another week, to correct the article for DYK purposes. Many nominators languishing way back in the current DYK nom backlog have suffered delays far longer than this already, so we are not in a position to penalise EEng for causing a far shorter delay. Also, EEng is a regular and reliable contributor to this page, so is not expected to waste our time, especially as this is a worthy article for DYK.--Storye book (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've begun a significant copyedit for style only. But here's an important point: I'm happy to say that I've found some experts who can help vet and improve the technical content, so in doing so I've tagged on stuff that I, as a layman, don't quite get, for attention by the experts. I hope that, by now, it's been sufficiently established elsewhere that such tags are not badges of shame, but joyful invitations to collaborative editing, so that if some still remain a week from now, there won't be any tsk-tsking about main-page embarrassment. EEng (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Where does this nomination stand? I see that there were a number of edits made, but the last was on June 13, and there's been nothing new for over a week. How soon will it be ready for a review? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was waiting for an email from one of the boffins who was helping me, and (thanks to your message here) I just checked again and found I'd already got it a week ago but missed it. I'll need tmw to make further edits then ask for another readthrough by them. Let's say Tuesday for sure. How embarrassing to be bringing up the rear of the DYK foot-draggers. EEng (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• @ EEng. I guess the lesson we can all learn from this is that if we nominate an article for DYK but we don't know enough about the subject matter to bring it up to DYK standard, then it's going to get delayed and possibly blocked. The addition of "clarification needed" tags just confirms the problem. A reviewer can give nominators moral support and general advice, but cannot do the job for them. You have given tomorrow (Tuesday 24 June) as your own deadline, and I think that should also be the deadline for confirming viability of this nom. Please ping me or any other reviewer tomorrow when you have finished editing, in the hope that this nom can be saved. --Storye book (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's one of the serious weirdnesses of the way DYK works. The article's expansion was carried out by an editor (I'm guessing a non-Endlish speaking grad student in the field) who never did anything else on WP before or after -- see Special:Contributions/CassandraRo. I nominated, but then the expanding editor disappeared and I, who know absolutely nothing about this field of research, was left with the responsibility of bringing the article up to snuff. It's not that I mind, it's just I needed to find expert help to do it.

So I understand your frustration, but try understand mine -- to keep all of this work from going to waste, I had to email Psychology Department chairmen at various universities, asking for help, hoping for a response, explaining there's a rush (and this was right at the end of the school year). And the whole time I'm thinking -- This is all because of the idiot five/seven-day rule. Why insist that nominations be done in a rush? Why couldn't I have worked on this over time, and then nominated? It makes no sense at all and is the cause of huge amounts of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair, for no reason at all.

So while moral support and so on are all nice, what reviewers (or anyone else) can do to help is think of a way to get the idiot seven-day rule changed so that DYK is no longer the Land of the Bleary-Eyed Editors Rushing to Meet an A Deadline That Has No Purpose. EEng (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)