Talk:Jane Balme

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Claire 75 in topic Notability

Notability edit

@LisaLodwick: could you comment on Jane Balme's notability? I can't find any coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources as required by the general notability guideline, and based on Google Scholar citation counts she does not appear to be particularly highly cited within the field of Australian archaeology (if she were highly cited or otherwise demonstrated to be a significant researcher in her field, she would qualify for notability per WP:ACADEMIC. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Rosguill: I have already cited a secondary source - Arthure, Susan (2014). "Balme, Jane". Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer. pp. 740–741, which is a reliable independent publication. This article describes Balme as a "leading researcher in the archaeology of Indigenous Australia", and summarises her major research contributions. Following the notability criteria for academics Wikipedia:Notability (academics) this shows Balme has had a significant impact on her scholarly discipline. Balme does not have a Google Scholar profile, but many of her articles are highly cited within archaeology, such as Balme 2000 Australian Archaeology, and Balme et al 2009 Quaternary International. LLodwick 17:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: @LisaLodwick: Balme is highly cited in her discipline and is e.g., secretary and chair of the Australian National Committee for Archaeology Teaching and Learning and on the Science Advisory Committee of the Kimberley Foundation Australia. There's an independent encyclopedia source confirming her notability, she has a good publication record and sits on an advisory committee to a national level body associated with her field. Struggling to see why she doesn't fit the criteria tbh.

As a aside remember that Google Scholar is not great for assessing humanities disciplines and those which aren't on, e.g., Pubmed or Cambridge Scientific. Few citations for scholars who are in the disciplines Google Scholar is weak on, is simply absence of evidence. This case provides a good example of that.

Claire 75 (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply