Changes on Ziad Obermeyer page, removing tags on page
Hi Ldm1954, hope all is well on your end. I wanted to ask if you could please take a look at the changes on the Ziad Obermeyer page and remove the tags if you think I solved them. I simplified the studies, removed excessive details and citations, and removed all unintended subjective wording in 3 major edits you'll find in the history. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Mariamenany (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 I'm a bit confused. You reverted my last change without a response to this message, which I sent to you over a week before I removed the tag. You also did not provide any explanation as to why you think the issues are still there. Could you please explain your reasoning, along with examples? Thanks. Mariamenany (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
As indicated in my reversion, 40 citations to his work is both excessive and WP:Peacock. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to write a resume or summary of his research. You have not corrected this. There are too many other issues, masses of name dropping, very minor details such as magnum etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Ldm1954, apologies for the delayed response. I didn't receive a notification of your reply, and I have just seen the edit on the policy and regulatory section that you made on the page. Do you think that it's ready now for the tag removal? Quite honestly, I am mostly concerned due to the exponential rise of newcomers' edits on the page when the improvement tag is on. Most of the edits are either wrong or inaccurate, and there was an attempt at vandalism of the page made by a user who is now blocked. I believe the name-dropping you mentioned is now removed, as one of the newcomer's editors collapsed the entire section. I wanted to see what you think, as I would have opted to have it back in a more concise version. I also removed the magna cum laude detail. Thanks again for thinking through this with me. Much appreciated. Mariamenany (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Overall number of citations now is 34 instead of 42. Lowered from 56 in the initial version. Hope this fixes the last issue. Thanks. Mariamenany (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
It is better, but there is still extensive refbombing. For instance, the lead has 5 sources when normally they have none.
Sometimes I just trim down what look like excessive numbers, but unless I know the general area that can be dodgy; I dont know his. If you trim them down using older sentences I would be OK.
Too many editors think that academic WP pages should be long lists of their research. I think the page David Eppstein is more appropriate; he did not write it. Even Richard P. Van Duyne is not that bad, although it is a bit too short. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 Thanks for the examples. I'm leaning a bit toward having their research as well, even in a more concise form, simply due to my preference as a reader going through a biography page. I'll trim down that section, and readers can follow the threads as needed. Much appreciated, truly. This has been very helpful. Mariamenany (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Victor Pavlovich Spiridonov - Draft
Dear Mr Marks,
my name is Nikolay Lobanov, I am working in the field of gas electron diffraction in Moscow State University and keeping in touch with people who communicated with V.P. Spiridonov.
So happened that besides the scientific research we trying to involve our students in some historical and popularization projects like exploring archive materials. Sometimes they help us to create biographical materials. But, alas, students are pretty careless people, so it is necessary to check what they have done.
Thank you for your constructive criticism. I have corrected a few important formulations (in order to be as close to truth as possible) and improved design of wikipage. The photo of V.P. Spiridonov from Wikimedia Commons was also installed.
It is much better, but it still needs work. In the English wiki everything must be supported by a source. I have marked the article for places where a source is needed, and also a couple of other places where there are unneeded statements and one odd word. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for patient sight. All lacks have been fixed by setting links to actual web pages, scientific work, official award document or biographical materials from personal dossier. Nikolas Sharp (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
It looks much better, I suggest submitting it. I would prefer that someone else reviews it, but if it is still unreviewed after a week or two please let me know and I will check the details of whether he passes WP:NPROF. He probably does, but I have not checked in detail. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree with you. That's what we'll do. Nikolas Sharp (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Good day! You suggested me to remind the situation later. Seems like there is no third side to sum up status of V.P. Spiridonov's page. Could you have a look if it satisfies the necessary conditions? Nikolas Sharp (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Ldm1954. I hope you are doing well. Can you please take a look at article about Spiridonov? I have checked list of issues and fixed the lacks. Nikolas Sharp (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Ldm1954. I hope you are doing well. Can you please take a look at this article when you have time and see if the third party tag has been addressed? Only education and career sections are sourced from his CV, restricted only to his primary appointments. I have also removed all awards that were sourced from his CV. If the concern has been addressed, can you please remove the tag? HRShami (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
@Tosca-the-engineer and @Fiske checked your edit request in detail, so I think they should say if they feel the third-party tag is now OK to remove. If they are OK with it I will remove it. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954:, @Tosca-the-engineer: I just read the page again, I think it's ok to remove that tag. Basic bio data and appointments are from his CV. The awards section is very well cleaned up. The research section is a mixture of secondary sources, none appear to be written by Park. Fiske (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm okay with removing the third-party tag ―Tosca-the-engineer (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 Can you please also take a look at the research section of Enrico Mini when you have time? I have tried to address the intricate detail tag by removing information from the research section. Pinging @Tosca-the-engineer because they made all the edits through edit requests. HRShami (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I removed the Stanford list and a couple of sources that looked like bloat, then removed the tag. The question of whether being on that list confers notability has been discussed at WT:NPROF, and the concensus was that it was not a useful addition. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much. HRShami (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Revision for William T. Moore (William Moore physicist)
i wish to apologise sincerely for removing the maintenance templates. It was a complete accident and I am so sorry if you have had to do extra work. I am a new editor on here. Following your move to Draftspace of my entry in February on the above, I have been working very hard to find new references and as a result have done a major revision with some new notability references.
Hello - this is Luiysia again with Wikimedians of Chicago! For May, we will be having a casual in-person meetup at Jackalope Coffee and Tea from 24 May 2026, from 2-4pm.
Hi Ldm1954. Thank you for your work on Kun-Mu Chen. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
A biography of a Taiwanese-American electrical engineer, greatly improved through the AfC process.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello @Ldm1954 - can I just check where you think I am getting it wrong on the above draft, so that I don't put any further editors through an AFC / NPP doom loop? You queried whether WP:NPROF applied and said it was WP:TOOSOON. I must admit the h-index raised my eyebrows, but as far as I could tell this was an endowed, named chair and the subject was appointed into the chair, as opposed to promoted with his previous role. What did I miss on criteria 5 on this? ChrysGalley (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Here are the issues I saw:
Not enough sources. The Education section has none, and there is nothing for his promotions etc. We need the OP to add them.
Notability. Please recheck WP:NPROF#C5, not all endowed chairs qualify. If you check https://artsci.tamu.edu/mathematics/contact/faculty.html#All there are a few "Distinguished Professors" who would automatically qualify, for instance Ronald DeVore or Peter Kuchment. If you compare him to them I think it becomes clear that his chair is not at the same level. Maybe a case could be made which is why draft (versus PROD/AfD) was my choice.
Thanks @Ldm1954 - Yes, but I have to operate by (a) the wording of NPROF which simply says "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." - I don't see the word "some", "it depends", "can't be endowed if the same institution also has distinguished"; plus these are clearly "or" statements, any one of the three conditions needs to apply. Unless you fundamentally question this is an endowed chair? Secondly I'm working to the WP:AFCPURPOSE, and I'm pretty sure this would survive AFD because any number of editors would be point out there is no nuance in this wording. Now by all means show me where there is nuance, but I can't see where "not all endowed chairs qualify"? The first point, well under our guidelines it should certainly be tagged but unless it impacts notability or some other hard block such as copyvio, then it should proceed, again per AFCPURPOSE, if there is a reasonable chance of getting through AFD. Education details like his distinguished supervisor are sourced, but irrelevant to notability, as I'm sure we both agree. Now my sole interest in getting a landing here is that it's unfair on editors if my reading of NPROF is wrong and I'm accepting drafts incorrectly. Just point me to the nuance. Now if you are saying "this explosion in chairs is getting a bit silly" then I am 101% in agreement, and I noted the h-index is not much higher than some of my PhD students. But I can't just flex the wording unless I have grounds so to do. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
You have misunderstood the difference between a named chair and a distinguished professor and the concensus at WT:NPROF. You probably already known this, but a named chair (they are all endowed) just means that someone gave money and the chair is named after them. Many academic departments raise money through enticing people to donate with their name on it; see for instance how many at Harvard Math have a chair. In contrast to this a distinguished professor is the highest chair in a university. If you want you can search the archives at WT:NPROF where this has been frequently discussed, for instance Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 15#Proposed deletion of C5. You can also look at prior AfD, for instance there is a brief mention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Benoit. Frequently these issues come up at AfD.
I will also draw your attention to Step 2 of WP:AFCPURPOSE; sources are required.
WP:NPP is a second level review where we also see new articles directly created in main. The questions there are whether the article is a) good enough as is, b) needs minor edits that I can do, c) needs significant edits that I am not comfortable doing, needs improvement and/or may not be notable, d) is LLM or similar for CSD, e) PROD, f) AfD. I viewed his page as in class c), where it certainly fails verification and may not be notable. The issue then for me was draftify for improvement (which I did) or tag, and I thought that it was not adequate to be in main in the form it is in.
I do not think it would survive AfD in its current form, but might under WP:HEY if it was improved -- and that is a strong indicator that draftification is the right direction IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
N.B., at some stage you may want to apply to do WP:NPP, it is more demanding but there are not enough qualified academics doing it. Be warned that someone will probably threaten to sue you...almost a badge of honor! Ldm1954 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
No, I'm steering well clear of NPP! Plus I'm clinical rather than academic, albeit an external examiner, so I guess I'm half pregnant (or half corrupt) in that respect. However I am aware of the slightly different slant on NPP, which actually is a good thing almost all of the time, maybe the wrinkles like this are there to be tolerated. I am certainly aware of the distinction between distinguished / named / endowed chairs (and promotions "since you've been here a long time"). I will decline future endowed chairs if there is a distinguished chair in the faculty, and/or refer it to Talk, but I suspect that someone else will stop me on that one at some point - at least I can point them in your direction. I note that in the AFD for DB case above it's heading to keep or even snow keep, for example, but there is a Fellow in there too, which makes that AFD nomination a bit puzzling all round (as you hinted). ChrysGalley (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Michael_James_Manfra
Thanks for the heads up on Draft:Michael James Manfra. I've removed the duplicated content from the lead paragraph. Let me know if you have other thoughts on this article. Jaredgraywest (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
It looks fine. It still has to go through a second review cyvle (WP:NPP) which I csnnot fo I did the AfC acceptance. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Valentina Boeva
Hello Ldm1954, thank you for the detailed feedback on Draft:Valentina Boeva and for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I accept the WP:TOOSOON call. The case for WP:NPROF criterion 1 is at the lower end at this point. I'd rather set the draft aside and revisit in 18-24 months once there is more independent secondary coverage and her editorial / third-party tool-use record has had more time to accumulate, than push for a borderline acceptance now. I appreciate your time. Disclosure: I am a colleague of the subject at ETH Zurich, noted on the draft talk page. Tarquasso (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Your problem is that the article is unfocussed. Much is on her academic career, but she definitely does not pass any of WP:NPROF including WP:NPROF#C7, that would require something like APS awards for science outreach. None of her science contributes to WP:GNG.
Some is on her company. Notability is not inherited, the company raising funds etc says nothing about her.
The current article says nothing about her as WP:SIGCOV, none of those interviews are in. It needs a rewrite for WP:GNG. The Elle and the Entrepreneur probably do not qualify as they are interviews, see WP:Interviews. Quartz maybe, the WLS is paywalled. As yet I dont see a definitive pass of any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Jaafar M. H. Elmirghani - issues addressed
Hello, I have addressed the issues raised in your review, fixed the broken references, replaced unsupported sources, explained what NEOM is, and updated the media coverage section. I have resubmitted the draft. Thank you for your feedback. ~2026-29318-92 (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
