Draft talk:Mary Beth Goodman

Ensuring credibility

An earlier editor rejected this draft because it ‘sounded like an advertisement’ about the subject of the biographical page. A later editor requested slimming down the list of the subject’s publications, although that list which was intended to demonstrate the subject’s expertise and credibility and to counter the ‘puff piece’ concerns.

As a new contributor, I would appreciate advice from more seasoned community members re: threading the needle in contributing credibility-bolstering info to this bio page without apparently going overboard.

thanks! Lfdigests (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I like where your instincts are at. An author with major publications is a great subject for an article.

However, what we Wikipedians want most is high-quality secondary sources--not written by the subject, but about her/her work. So while bios on her employers' websites and publications with she's authored are of some use, we want things like newspaper articles that back up these claims. Snowman304|talk 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at bios of comparable individuals in the same field, it seems like materials and press releases from the U.S. Government have been suitable to establish the person’s credibility, where press or newspaper coverage of them may not exist. For this particular individual, are the current academic sources referencing her credentials and the government materials establishing her titles and expertise insufficient? 73.132.26.62 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@safariscribe could you share your thoughts on the question above, and maybe expand on your feedback in the draft? I’d be grateful for your help.

Your comments in rejecting the draft say it requires more independent sources. I’m hoping you can help me make sense of this. I’ve been stuck on this draft, trying to figure out more appropriate sourcing and why the current White House, State Department, Congressional, academic institutions, and international organizations’ sources aren’t considered sufficiently credible or independent? Given she’s a policy official, those are the sources that generally publish content about her type of work or would reference her by name rather than “The White House said…” and “the State Department did…”

I’ve looked at pages of individuals who held just one of the positions she did (see below) and the sourcing seems comparable if not leaner. I’m really stuck on what particularly is lacking to prove this bio is credible. I’d really appreciate the advice!!

This draft has had me stumped. Next time I won’t pick a bio page to work on 😅

Comparable bios

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Robert_G._Berschinski

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jennifer_M._Harris

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Laura_Rosenberger

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Andrew_Strelka Lfdigests (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

SafariScribe, I saw your comment on the draft saying "Doesn't meet WP:NPOL." While she's not a politician or a judge, I'd think her current position is equivalent in stature to an NPOL. Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD is a high position in a very significant intergovernmental organization with many member countries, including The United States. She's clearly seen as an expert worth quoting or interviewing in some of media pieces in the "Publications, remarks, and media" section (e.g., the NPR interview with her at the top Edited to add: though as I think about this more, perhaps that's not significant coverage of her, only significant coverage of the US international COVID response, though NPR clearly sees her as having expertise). In a Teahouse exchange, I recommended to Lfdigests that s/he comb though that section to pull out some of the media coverage to demonstrate her notability, but in the meantime, would you mind saying a bit more about why you think she doesn't meet the presumed notable standard? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Safariscribe I would be grateful for your thoughts so I can improve this and the draft can move forward. Thanks very much, Lfdigests (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this and your response in the tearoom! Appreciate the close review and helpful commentary.

A few updates:

—on the question of notability by virtue of her current role: The Secretary General of the most prominent international institutions (e.g. the UN, OECD, WHO, WTO, etc.) is the equivalent of a Head of State. A Deputy Secretary General (her title) is considered a peer of a deputy Head of State and/or Minister of a Portfolio. That makes her the equivalent of a Minister of Defense, Secretary of State, U.S. Trade Representative, etc.

—I’ve added a few citations that (hopefully) further indicate her notability. I would welcome your thoughts!

—Out of curiosity, is there a limit on how many items one should include under the media/publications section of a person’s bio page? (I saw your comment about trimming it.)

—Nearly all the items under her media/publications section are also used as citations in the draft, so it’s no problem to trim the former list. Would you recommend prioritizing her congressional testimonies, the instances when she spoke on behalf of the White House, the NPR interview, etc.? Or, for example, her articles which reflect original thinking and research but don’t carry the prominence of say the White House? I’d appreciate the advice.

—Per your NPR example, do I need to worry about the line between ‘she’s referenced because she herself is significant’ versus ‘she’s referenced because the US COVID response she leads is significant’? To my thinking, if she’s been appointed to lead such a critical portfolio, it implies she has credibility and some demonstrated expertise.

Grateful for your advice and patience! I appreciate all the guidance. With thanks from this newbie, Lfdigests (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)