Talk:Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist)

Reformat please

Based upon his web page he is notable, but his page does not show this in the standard format. Please look at others and reformat with short (no puffery as he does not need it) sections on:

• Career
• Research areas
• Awards

Also, please use infobox scientist. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954 this is too vague or a I am not getting it. You just expect the infobox and few titles? You do't move to draft for that, you can add yourself or just tag me in the talk page. Moving to draft a sourced and notable page written by an acive user is just adding unnecessary passages.I am a long-term user, I have created other pages approved in the past. You don't need to do that. Plus, other users visited the page, you see that nobody noticed this as a big issues so it's clearly not a big deal to justfy a move to draft.Is there anything else to discuss here?--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the move to draftspace, the problems are insufficient to warrant that. I regularly move articles to draftspace but doing so because of a lack of an infobox is unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to restore to mainspace but unfortunately Ldm1954 did not correctly complete the procedure and the redirect to draftspace was obstructing the move. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

AusLondonder thank you...in the meantime have written to the project just to be sure... by nature here I focus on content and sources, so I kinda try to avoid any technical discussion about the procedure per se if possible, including these technical aspects that you have ust mentioned. I feel it's not where I am more efficient--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Now restored to mainspace :) AusLondonder (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPROF carefully. As a new page reviewer it is not my job to correct badly structured pages, this is your job. As a few points:

• Notability is not inherited. Supervising a PhD is not relevant
• Being on advisory committees is WP:MILL
• Telescope hours is WP:MILL
• None of his career is mentioned. According to the current page he never did a PhD (or even BS)
• No awards mentioned
• Wrong infobox
• Nothing in the page demonstrates that he passes WP:NPROF.

I noticed that you edited the page to proper format, then reverted it back to inappropriate format.

Please look at (plus others comments on them):

Marc Davis (astronomer) which has problems

Martin Rees for a massive, well-structured page

Craig Hogan needs info box and sources

Roger Blandford has some puffery

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't what you said when you moved it to draftspace and started the discussion here. You asked for reformatting. AusLondonder (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This worries me. It might end up like one of those situation where no matter what you do, there is something else to do. And where the time spent to perform a task yourself is actually lower than asking to be done and commenting how it's done. This is not very functional.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(confl.) The telescope hours was just stated in a sources not linked to him (a national newspaper), the PhD student is because it was mentioned in the page of the student ad it has been there for a while so I put it also here... I did not revert it back to inappropriate... I did no such thing...

I write articles based on thirs-party sources, not the website of the university where he works. He is notable, but I don't put information just because it's on his univeristy webpage. That's it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

My messages have not changed. In my second message I just expanded on the first to give you some example pages for others. As before key issues were:

• No demonstration of notability for someone who is, based upon h-factors and awards (two key WP:NPROF criteria)
• No proof of career
• Wrong format

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your second message came 40 minutes after your first and after I restored the article to mainspace. AusLondonder (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel a productive feedback, to be honest. Funny thing is that I care about what I write and I update it regularly, but I am sorry that I just don't understand... in the time you wrote all of this you could have simply acted. So Ldm1954 since you looked at the sources to express your doubts, could you please add them yourself the way you prefer? that would be easier and less time-consuming for everybody I suppose.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So Ldm1954 I ping you since we heard no feedback. The template you put after the move to draft was reverted stated:

• This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (March 2024). Since the article is currently a stub, reorganizing it shouldn't be too complicated given its brevity. It would be helpful if you could make the necessary adjustments directly and show me the revised version. Given its short current state, it shouldn't take much time. In the meantime, it was reverted after minor changes... so if there is something more you had in mind here, you can proceed yourself.
• An editor has performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability. (March 2024).The editor referred to here is you. The other user left it but no other users pointed it out before. This is the aspect I'm particularly keen to understand. I've extensively researched sources over several months, ensuring they're credible and diverse ad external. I focused on peer-reviewed articles and omitted local press, solely relying on national sources. The information you've labeled as "WP:MILL" is, in fact, backed by external sources. Although our perspectives may differ, it's evident that you conducted a search (otherwise the template wouldn't have been added), so could you please provide the links to the sources you had in front of you when you added it? It would be appreciated if you could share them here. Until you do so, I'm hesitant to proceed with further edits on the page.I had other things to add but let's be 100% clear. No generic description or mention to other pages, I am an expert editor I don't need that, just go the point and copy-paste here the exact links of the sources you had in mind.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Alexmar983. Key points.

• I do not speak Italian. I will therefore decline to edit based upon sources which are in Italian.
• It is your responsibility to demonstrate to the reader (and reviewer) that the page you have constructed is notable. The notability pages are very clear about what is needed. As written he does not meet any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF. While I understand your statement about wanting to use only very independent sources, in the process you have removed everything that demonstrates notability.

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954 the article is notable, nobody can deny this. What you see is a stub of a notable article, like other ones here in their early stages. Its current state isn't due to negligence but rather a commitment to accuracy, I prefer to add information when I am 100% sure on the sources and the stub status will disappear over time, but it was a good profile to be described (see for example red links, or the fact that atudents with minor impact are already on enwiki). This stub is akin to other notable articles in their early stages.

Now, if you state that you "performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability," it's essential to provide details upon request. Considering the vast number of stub articles available, it's crucial to focus on those where accessing sources or mastering the topic is feasible. By entering this discussion, you've taken on the responsibility to engage meaningfully, showcasing a comparable understanding of the subject matter and its sources.

It's a valuable reminder that entering a discussion with only a general idea can disrupt the editing process, especially when dealing with sensitive topics like sources and notability. Efficiency is paramount when addressing these matters, and a thorough evaluation of sources is necessary before also adding templates. If you weren't able to fully evaluate the source situation at the time of adding the template, then its usefulness is questionable. Such template merely reiterates the obvious and can be counterproductive. Removing the template, while retaining the stub classification, is more reasonable. I will continue the article's gradual improvement without unnecessary debate as I was doing before I had to stop to address these rather excessive requests (which of course are excessive, the approach is not calibrated on the actual sources, it's a just a series of generic action, it's too superficial to acutally engage). Don't worry the article is good hand, just don't overdo it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954 I am still waiting for a response (I see that you are active).

I recall that in this "stalemate" that interrupted the editing, an objectively excessive action was taken first, followed by the insertion of two templates, one of which was objectively excessively as well and quickly dismissed. The third request remains. Frankly, given the previous instances, it's better to be very precise and focused here.

Now, I won't add anything that I would normally have done until it is clearly explained what is the point that you had in mind wth the curent template. I need it to be pinpointed with precision. An editor has performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability. So the template refers, for the moment, to sources that whoever inserted it (that is you) must have seen. So I would like to know exactly what these sources are. Could you please insert them here? They should have been open on your computer screen when the template was added, so I don't think it should be a big problem to find them again. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have responded to you multiple times, the latest on March 24th. I have nothing more to add. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954 (Why did you not ping me?) Perhaps my previous message came across as assertive, but Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) are delicate matters, and you helped create this situation. If there's a template indicating that sources have been reviewed, it's only fair that there's room for discussion regarding such sources. Your comments are related to content to add; for such requests, there is a template called "stub," which I have inserted myself.

Regarding the importance of accurate and thorough sourcing, especially in sensitive matters like BLP, unfortunately, there are hints that you did not evaluate sources before making claims. This is based on the approach of your other actions and your comment that you don't understand the language, along with the lack of specific feedback when requested. If anyone reads this talk, it does not demonstrate a good procedure.

Normally, I would be tolerant, but due to the other two occurrences, I will proceed to remove the template. I will then continue to edit the page with a very accurate selection of sources, especially by third parties, until the stub template could be removed, not necessarily by me, as it should have been done before your intervention.

I repeat the concept that BLP is a delicate matter, so it's advisable not to address them with just generic assumptions inferred from other articles. In general, in Wikipedia, but especially with BLP, the centrality of sources is paramount. So if you want to provide the source you were referring to when you put the template, I could probably show some examples of what I mean, even in this case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, I have removed the current template. I am now resuming editing as usual despite this setback. Feel free to remove the stub template in the future. However, I am being very meticulous about the sources I add to the biographies of living people (BLP)--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I came here to update the evaluation template. The stub template was removed from the main namespace (ns0) many months ago, as this article was never truly a stub—it might have been excessive to label it as such from the start, in my opinion. While revisiting this discussion, I noticed the statement: "I do not speak Italian. I will therefore decline to edit based upon sources which are in Italian." However, some of the sources I added as soon as I resumed editing were actually in English.

This might be a detail but to me this suggests, along with the lack of detailed feedback when requested, that the patroller may not have thoroughly checked the sources. I want to emphasize it here after many months to remind for future readers that patrolling is important, especially for articles about living people, and it should be done carefully rather than following a generic approach with standardized comment. Otherwise, it becomes a waste of time.

I was actively working on this page and, as a decently experienced user, the time spent on this discussion months ago (instead of directly improving the content as I had intended), ended up being rather unproductive. The discussion itself was vague and added almost no value. Editors time is important and should not be allocated this way. --Alexmar983 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)