Talk:Carolyn C. Perrucci

Carolyn C. Perrucci was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 9, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia 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 articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indiana Low‑importance Carolyn C. Perrucci is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for, and sustain comprehensive coverage of the U.S. state of Indiana and related subjects on Wikipedia. Template Usage Change Patrol Articles Requested Become a Member Project Talk IndianaWikipedia:WikiProject IndianaTemplate:WikiProject IndianaIndiana articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can do: WikiProject Indiana alerts Requested Reassessments Indiana articles needing assessed Indiana cleanup listing Articles needing infoboxes Articles needing attention To-do Lists Articles needing images Purdue Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Purdue, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Purdue University, the Purdue University system, and the Purdue Boilermakers 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.PurdueWikipedia:WikiProject PurdueTemplate:WikiProject PurduePurdue articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tennessee Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: Gender studies (2022) This article was created or improved during the Gender studies edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in April 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Carolyn C. Perrucci/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nfutvol (talk · contribs) 19:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. nf utvol (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

   Recommend removing the in-line use of the cite book template, moving those to the bibliography, and just using the book's name in the body of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

   Lead is lacking citations. For a living person, this is a requirement. Additional sources include a self-published CV by the subject of the article, this probably should be sourced elsewhere. Finally, the citations listed do not follow the MOS for short citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is minutiae in the article that is of questionable value, especially in regards to the conferences the author has participated in. Conference participation is a typical aspect of academic life, and would only be notable if the individual was a host or major presenter.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No apparent bias in the article as it is presented

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very stable, but it has really only been authored by a single editor and was only created 4 months ago. Because it's so new, I'm hesitant to really call this stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images present in the article. An image of the person, images illustrating the person's field of study or place of study, home town, or subjects of the person's study would be helpful.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I unfortunately have to fail this right now. I would encourage a second reviewer to conduct a review, though. I have concerns that the article does not meet notability requirements and could be subject to deletion. As of right now, while the article is mostly written well and sourced, it is little more than a bibliography and a list of awards and achievements. For example, instead of just listed the grants the individual received, tell the reader what they did with those grants and what discoveries were made as a result of the studies conducted with the funds. Right now the article boils down to: Dr. Perucci is a professor who got some grants and contributed to some books. No reference is made to any articles she wrote. You can use the Wikipedia Library to help search for more information on her research. Hope this helps!

I'm not entirely sure this biography meets notability guidelines. Dr. Perrucci appears quite accomplished in her field, but nothing in the article seems to suggest her career is any more or less noteworthy than a typical university professor in a related field. I am not proposing the article for deletion yet, but I think it's worth a deeper discussion. nf utvol (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a second look and only just now realized that all references are

primary sources, should have picked that up during my review and noted it there, whoops. Further evidence that this article should be considered for deletion. If no further comments are made or sources supplied by the end of the week, I'm going to PROD this article.nf utvol (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe she meets

WP:SIGCOV based on the sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Plus, co-editing the notable book, Women in Scientific and Engineering Professions doesn't hurt. TJMSmith (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources provided are all primary sources for grants, conference attendance, fellowships, etc., from local-interest sections of newspapers in the towns where she has done work. In other words, all pretty run-of-the-mill activities by academic staff at a university. I'm not saying Dr. Perucci *isn't* notable - she may very well be - but nothing presented yet would really separate her from any other professor at a major research university. I think we can agree that every university professor is not necessarily considered noteworthy simply because they are a university professor. Do you have any information on unique achievements by Dr. Perucci, such as any major firsts, groundbreaking research that had a noteworthy and lasting impact on a field of study, or secondary sources referencing her or her work? nf utvol (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most academics are not as well covered in reliable news sources. This is why I think the meets

WP:GNG. TJMSmith (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Understood that most academics are not well covered in news. But, usually, academics that are noteworthy will have news reports other than articles about receiving grants, attending conferences, career milestones, and obituaries. All of the sources provided are either professional biographies at the subject's institution, or local/regional newspaper articles discussing the above. These are, by definition, primary sources and, from

Wikipedia:No Original Research

: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

The fact that Dr. Perucci is not covered in anything beyond newspaper snippets outlining run-of-the-mill academic activity does not really add to the argument for notability. Even most of these articles are "Person X attended event Y," or "person X received grant." There's never any discussion in the articles about what the outcomes or impacts were. Any sources that talk about what she has accomplished that is out of the ordinary for any other academic at a research university would go a long way towards establishing notability. If we go by the guidelines established in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) then it is fairly clear, based on the citations listed in the article, that Dr. Perucci does not meet the criteria for notability.nf utvol (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]