Talk:Doris Holmes Blake/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article was written as part of an edit-a-thon

Viola Shelly Shantz, one of many new articles created.

This article was started by a new editor as part of an edit-a-thon called She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon held at the Smithsonian Institution Archives. This could very well be the first article that the editor who started it has ever written, so please be kind, educating and please consider incorporating them into the editing process. We look forward to your contributions in helping to expand content on women in science on Wikipedia, and helping to create a welcome environment for all editors! This note has been placed on all articles related to the event! Sarah (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability?

The article is very well written, but does it comply with WP:ACADEMIC guidelines? An article is notable under that guideline if:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

I see that she published a lot, but I don't see any evidence that those publications were noteworthy or influential.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

I see no evidence of honours in the article.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

I see no mention of election to a scholarly society.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Again, no evidence in the article that this is the case.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

Nope.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Nope.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Arguable. The Smithsonian thinks she's important enough to include on Wikipedia. We need to see why in the article.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Nope.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Nope.

I've checked the article against WP:BIO, and it does not seem to satisfy basic notability. So: please demonstrate the reason for notability in the text of the article. Articles must be notable for inclusion on wikipedia. I have bolded what I expect are the easiest criteria to satisfy. If these edits are made, this is the start of a very good article. Cheers, --Rawlangs (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am no entomologist, so it's hard for me to edit the article and add her academic impact. But she actually is quite often referenced if you just search for her name in Google and also named quite a few bugs (which is already visible in the existing sources), the has suggested like 800 species and most of them got accepted. Here I want to share a few references, which would make me conclude that she had a big impact in that field:

• Colaspis chapalensis Blake
  • http://www.jstor.org/stable/25084332?seq=2
  • http://gni.globalnames.org/name_indices/60647926/name_index_records
• http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1720&context=insectamundi (Chalcosicya Blake) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finn-Pauls (talk • contribs) 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doris Holmes Blake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502211723/http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/ to http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)