Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2018-10-28/Opinion

1597:). If the article had been created in mainspace and submitted to AFD, it would have fared better than going through AFC under the current system. So, I don't see that Bradv did anything wrong, but I do see causes for concern in AFC if the system is geared not to assist an article other than put templates on it and the user who created it. If, as Bradv argues, asking the reviewers to do a bit more than accept or reject articles will lead to an even greater backlog and a reluctance to get more volunteers involved, then perhaps we need to consider the process itself, or even if AFC should continue. Does the AFC acceptance process set the bar too high (after all we do have AfD for dubious articles)? Or could the process be more geared to assisting the article, rather than accepting or rejecting a user's submission. The inexperienced user who created the article has done their bit, and should not be expected to carry the burden - we should take that on as experienced Wikipedians. One suggestion could be to send declines to AFD rather than back to the creator (who may, as in this case, already have left Knowledge (XXG)). Whatever we do, we cannot allow decent draft articles like 1581:, and the article is then ignored. Nobody is benefiting from that at all. If the article had been created in mainspace it would have fared better, especially if it had been taken to AFD where people would have made an attempt to strengthen sources. While I understand and sympathise with Bradv's explanation that this is what AFC does, and they can't do any better, it does seem odd that an article that is not obviously crap, and has significant enough indicators to alert people to the notability of the subject (there is clear assertion of notability - enough to withstand a Prod or a Speedy, and clues are that she co-invented something on which we already had an article which mentioned her by name - 1212:, you certainly have nothing to feel bad about, you were just doing a volunteer task that you took on and you did it well. A key point you made is that there have been many other Nobel Prize winners who did not have an article before they won the prize. So this was not unusual, and certainly not a gender-bias incident. But journalists and editors "jumped" on the story, and the angle they used - woman wins Nobel Prize previously shunned by Knowledge (XXG) - was, given the previous history of the non-existence of articles about many winners, a stretch. "Knowledge (XXG) gets unfairly bumped around again by the media" seems more accurate. Thanks for all of your good work here. 1269:- My own $ 0.02 is that you were spot on. AfC deliberately doesn't involve a BEFORE check (given our current backlog set-up we'd melt under it - it would be more like an enforced RA). No attempt to reach out by the news sources to anyone who actually knows something about AfC. Rather unimpressed by the press statements by a couple of senior figures in Wiki who should know better. Thanks for writing this nice and calm response in the wake of a fair chunk of unwarranted hostility. 110: 130: 1314:

having to do a "BEFORE" type evaluation, as declining a draft is very different from nominating for deletion. The point of "BEFORE" is to avoid wasting the community's time with a deletion discussion when even a cursory look for references would have revealed that enough exist even if they aren't currently cited. Declining a draft doesn't remove the article or require a discussion, it just tells the creator that they've got some more work to do.

1068: 90: 596: 1332:

of whether the sources were adequate to show notability in the declined version is irrelevant. (I personally think they were-- that obviously reliable primary sources are sufficient, though not ideal, but even if I thought otherwise I would have accepted. Frankly, I guessed at the time that it was declined because President OSA had not been noticed, which would have been an understandable error. )

120: 36: 140: 1434:- it's definitely not an evidently wrong idea, but there are cases where I feel that the slightly stronger language of Decline (but not "Reject") is apropos. This disagreement is purely within me, so I imagine that we might get a fair set of mixed views on the matter if you raised it in AfC. Perhaps a gentler one for referencing and a decline for advertorial et al? 100: 150: 1531:

The OSA is a reliable source for its own officers, but was it clear that being an officer of the OSA conferred sufficient notability? How would that have been established? If I had reviewed the draft as it stands, I would also have asked for better sourcing to establish notability. The problem is not

1355:

I've been discussing this incident with a variety of editors for nearly a month now, and I'm having considerable trouble understanding your comment. I believe I reviewed my own actions honestly, and I've gone over every aspect of the AfC project from top to bottom trying to understand what might have

792:

If none of the above can be done, the community may want to consider whether to abolish AfC altogether. If this draft had been created directly in mainspace, it would have likely languished as a poorly-sourced BLP, but at least we would have had an article. (I'm not sure that's preferable, but it may

703:

There is presently a backlog of approximately 4,000 drafts, with a wait time of over two months. AfC has suffered from a number of reviewers abandoning the WikiProject due to criticism, and has been criticized broadly for years across the Knowledge (XXG) community. Any expectations of additional work

632:

Notability, as it pertains to Knowledge (XXG), is a judgement of the subject of an article, not the content of the article itself. There are plenty of notable subjects that don't have Knowledge (XXG) articles. When a draft is reviewed at AfC, it is evaluated based on the information that is presented

1398:

I've been wondering if we should do something about our communication towards editors here.. Our nomenclature is rather clinical and "Declining a draft" might potentially be interpreted as "topic declined" or simply be interpreted as discouraging further pursuit. I was wondering if perhaps the usage

1313:

subject. You did nothing wrong here; the media just (rather understandably, I suppose) doesn't understand how our processes work. This was not a case of "gender bias", as evidenced by the finding that a third of Nobel winners had no article at the time of their win. I would not support AfC reviewers

1285:

A very common misunderstanding is over "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; this is a requirement for notability, not for high-quality sourcing of the article. It doesn't mean, as one editor thought, that an article on netball needs to be written from books

646:

The AfC flowchart requires that reviewers check that topics don't already exist, are encyclopedic, are notable, and are reliably sourced. For living persons, it requires an additional check that inline citations are used. This draft failed both the reliably sourced checkpoint and the inline citation

612:

search before declining the draft. However, this procedure applies specifically to nominating articles for deletion, and is not a requirement of the AfC process. AfC is designed specifically to help new editors write their own articles, to give them time to improve them and learn how Knowledge (XXG)

1669:

Writing a first article can be bewildering, and the AfC system appears to only cement that state of affairs. I miss the days when someone could actually write a stub and other editors would expand upon it rather than rushing to delete it. I'm all for deleting when it's appropriate but the climate

1331:

erroneous. The guideline for accepting drafts is that as an article it would probably pass AfD, and this would, because the referencing inadequacies were easily fixable. The discussion above is based on the view that they had to be fixed first. AfC is not for determining notability, so the question

325:

This is a common occurrence at AfC. Editors who are new to Knowledge (XXG) seek what is in their minds the most authoritative sources, such as official biographies, and are confused when we request to see news articles instead. Usually an informative decline message, followed by a discussion on a

1650:

a huge list - all now blue though at that time at least one was red. But I must say when I first looked at it (after the Nobel) I missed the significance of that too, and thought the draft didn't demonstrate notability - but then I don't edit declining things in areas I'm not very familiar with.

353:

Unlike her fellow winners, Strickland did not have a Knowledge (XXG) page at the time of the announcement. A Knowledge (XXG) user tried to set up a page in May, but it was denied by a moderator with the message: “This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Knowledge

666:

With the benefit of hindsight, I wish that I had taken a few extra minutes to search for additional sources and promote this draft to mainspace myself. Obviously I could not have known that Strickland would win a Nobel prize, nor could I have known that the original author wasn't going to stick

687:

It is a crying shame that only two people ever made an attempt to write an article about Strickland. The first, from 2014, was deleted as a blatant copyright violation. The second, in May, was abandoned as quickly as it was submitted, the author likely deterred by the two month backlog at AfC.

1626:

in this fashion. This is the normal state of affairs; as many have noted, Bradv did not act out of line with community norms. This case can hopefully lead the community to recognize some of the more perverse consequences of the relatively new G13 criterion, especially in combination with the

1670:

of eradication has given rise to yet another bureaucratic hoop through which no one should have to jump. This isn't the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia that only the few have the tenacity to study the culture over a long enough time that they are willing to edit.--

1645:

Thanks for writing this, but you don't mention the strongest claim for notability in the draft, in the last sentence ".... and served as the OSA president in 2013." Being one of their fellows isn't imo prima facie evidence of notability, but being president probably is - we have at

172:

Much has been said about the events surrounding Donna Strickland's Nobel Prize and the Knowledge (XXG) article about her that was declined before she won it. Little attention has been paid to the perspective of the reviewer who declined it, though. What follows is a review of the

1535:

Do we see anyone blaming the author of the article? That would also be unreasonable, as they were under no obligation to write it. One might as well blame everyone else who didn't write it or fix it. There is nothing special about the way this draft was handled. Cheers, · · ·

1568:

I don't recall having worked in AFC, so I don't have a full understanding of the process. From Bradv's explanation above, it seems that what he did was standard, which I find odd. What is the purpose of AFC if all that happens when an unregistered, inexperienced user submits

420:. While many experienced editors understood my reasoning, others criticized my decline, either based on the expectation that I should have accepted the draft in its state at the time, or that I should have looked for additional sources and improved the article myself. 1550:

Bradv, I have a great admiration for your transparency and bravery in this Opinion piece. Not everyone would have responded as you have and I think knowing the background of the event (not-having-a-Strikland-article event) is very helpful in sorting things out.

1243:

There was certainly nothing "wrong" in your assessment of the draft as it stood. Asking AfC reviewers to rewrite and research articles would be inviting the collapse of the system under an un-satisfiable workload. I'm sorry for the grief you took on the wiki's

386:

pointed to the decline of the draft as evidence of the "marginalization of women in science and gender bias at Knowledge (XXG)," as her male colleague has had a Knowledge (XXG) page since 2005. As an aside, these news articles all fail to mention that

844:

It is my hope that the criticism of this event and all the media attention will help to make Knowledge (XXG) better in its quest to document the sum of all human knowledge. If some of us have to take a beating for this, at least it's a worthy cause.

403:

That same day, I began receiving messages from other editors that this was in the news, and various editors began analyzing and questioning my actions to see if something had gone wrong. These discussions happened in several places, including

474:, which faces a continuous onslaught of spam and poorly-sourced biographies, reviewers need to be keenly aware of this policy. There are countless biographies posted every day of people linking to their own organization's website as proof of 1459:

To 'decline' something is to refuse it politely and rather formally (I am sorry to have to decline your offer). 'Reject' suggests that what is on offer is felt to be not good enough (an article or book which a publisher has rejected).

637:

notability. Therefore, even if a subject is notable, a draft is often declined for insufficient sources. That is not a judgement on the topic's notability – that is a judgement on the state of the draft, and a request for improvement.

1593:- the latter indicating that "Since the beginning of the program in 1955, 43 fellows have won a Nobel Prize", and she was an Optical Society President - all of whom, bar two at the time of submission, had articles on Knowledge (XXG): 1493:- I do reserve reject for very rare cases, hence why I delineated it from the "slightly stronger" - in effect, reject is a rough indication that if it is re-submitted, it should at least be considered whether to send it to MFD. 818:

Journalists — if you’re going to come after @Knowledge (XXG) for it’s coverage of women, check your own coverage first. We’re a mirror of the world’s biases, not the source of them. We can’t write articles about what you don’t

423:

While most of the criticism came from people unfamiliar with the policies and procedures of Knowledge (XXG), several very senior and respected administrators took me to task on- and off-wiki, claiming I should have known that

1230:, the only point I can see at which events could have been done differently, which you touch upon as "AfC sorting", is to tag the declined draft with the relevant WikiProjects. It's not in the flowchart, and it's only in the 617:. But it is also not one user's sandbox, which doesn't allow for other contributors to help. The idea with AfC is that other people can contribute to the article, but that no one, including reviewers, is obligated to do so. 724:. The impact of this change on the AfC project and on the article creation process would have to be carefully considered, but in the wake of this incident a proposal to change this may need to be brought to the community. 678:

In the days following the media attention, several observations have been made about things that we could do differently. Without any changes to the guidelines or processes, this incident is very likely to be repeated.

1532:

with the subject of the article, it is with the insufficiency of the article. It is not the reviewer's responsibility to fix the article. It is the reviewer's responsibility to not pass the article if it is not ready.

1231: 1651:

Looking further at the OSA presidency & hearing what those better informed said about her citation index figures then pursuaded me I was wrong. I hope the University of Waterloo (Associate Professor only) and

271:

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

1249:

Lazy journalists turn to Knowledge (XXG) for cut-and-paste material to meet their deadlines. Find nothing. Decide to write outraged item about Knowledge (XXG) instead as being the quicker and easier option.

564: 837:

Between this status and the debacle of the Knowledge (XXG) page, what is certain is that her work is (or at least was) not considered as it should have. This seems recurrent among women in the academic

1688:

What an interesting read, and terribly insightful as well to someone as unfamiliar with the AfC process as myself ^u^. (Reading this after it being mentioned on the December edition of the Signpost).

1162: 1122: 1112: 1616:

Where BEFORE comes into play at AfC is when nominating a draft for deletion at WP:MFD, which is an attempt to gain community consensus that a draft has no value to the project and should be deleted.

1132: 1092: 1147: 1127: 1117: 1102: 76: 975: 279:) lacked a direct citation. As the next step in the review process I took a look at the sources to see if they supported the claims, and if they were reliable and independent of the subject. 1188: 1107: 1085: 716:

search were part of the AfC workflow when declining drafts, this step could turn up additional sources and lead to a definitive answer on whether the reviewer thinks the subject is

1137: 1079: 55: 44: 197:

two months earlier, on March 28, 2018, and no other editors had contributed to it in the meantime. The author had made no other edits to Knowledge (XXG) either before or since.

1142: 1055: 1046: 439:

Taking these criticisms seriously, and armed with the benefit of hindsight, I reviewed my actions along with the relevant policies and guidelines to see what could be learned.

1152: 1235: 417: 1097: 493:, or to the reviewer's talk page, is all that was needed. Unfortunately, the author chose not to engage further, and no other editors came along to help improve the draft. 695:

I hope that the media attention about the lack of coverage of women in Knowledge (XXG) will help attract more editors. Evidence from past controversies suggests it will.

1618:

Bradv is wrong here, BEFORE plays no role in the normal AfC process whatsoever. All AfC drafts are automatically deleted with no BEFORE after 6 months with no edits per

209: 732:

A system of sorting and tagging AfC drafts based on topic area or potential notability would help draw experts into AfC, which could help improve drafts such as this.

1767: 658:. Many reviewers, including myself, occasionally fix up and accept drafts in this state, but there is presently no requirement to do so before declining a draft. 200:

This draft has received considerable media attention, and attracted a variety of comments from around the community about my actions, perceived problems with the

890: 958: 21: 854: 452: 1743: 1356:

gone wrong. Every aspect of what you just mentioned is covered within the essay, yet you somehow still see it differently. You characterize my actions as

801:

The lack of coverage of biographies of women in Knowledge (XXG) is a well-known problem, and after this media attention even more people are aware of it.

391:, who won a Nobel Prize the previous day, had not been the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article before the announcement, either. According to research by 1738: 1733: 215:

This essay is a personal review and reflection of what happened, what might have been done differently, and what we could possibly change going forward.

413: 549:; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent 904: 1679: 613:

works before subjecting them to the harsh environment of mainspace. However, AfC is not a place to request that someone else write an article, like

833:

We live in a world where a woman won a Nobel Prize without even being promoted to a professor, and you wonder why women leave the university world,

93: 1728: 512:. GNG insists on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but PROF merely requires that the information is 869: 333:

Unfortunately in this case, the original author had already abandoned this venture, and the draft went entirely unnoticed for over 4 months.

1468:

is the far stronger word and is more final, personally I would reserve it for clearly inappropriate or totally inadmissible submissions.

1399:

of more engaging words like "requires improvement", "not ready for publication" or similar to encourage people might make a difference. —

940: 692:

was welcomed, was invited to the Teahouse, and was invited to engage in conversation with other editors and reviewers about the draft.

275:

My conclusion at this point was that the topic was potentially notable, even though the strongest claim of notability (that she was an

704:

to be done by AfC reviewers, such as a BEFORE search, will drastically increase the backlog and increase the need for more reviewers.

354:(XXG) article.” Strickland, it was determined, had not received enough dedicated coverage elsewhere on the internet to warrant a page. 859: 1723: 1518: 1067: 49: 35: 17: 568: 330:, is enough for them to come up with reliable sources, or to realize that the subject itself is not notable enough for an article. 922: 756:

reveals conflict of interest issues, including a reliance on self-published sources. The society is not mentioned as reliable in

1305:, I looked at the draft you declined, and you were correct to decline it as lacking independent sources, which are required for 1559: 753: 229: 186: 395:, over one-third of all Nobel laureates since 2001 do not have Knowledge (XXG) articles on them when the prize is announced. 174: 519:

The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a

344:

was created, directly in mainspace this time. The media quickly noted that Strickland had not previously had an article.

1676: 520: 1582: 1412: 1366: 670:

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to work on an article on a Canadian who would later make history, and I missed it.

237: 864: 760:, nor is there any evidence of Knowledge (XXG) editors arriving at a consensus as to the reliability of this source. 205: 780:

states that the requirement for independent reliable sources applies to all articles, even if they are subject to a

624:, which is an attempt to gain community consensus that a draft has no value to the project and should be deleted. 1698: 1590: 1749: 489:

who created a poorly-sourced biography. A decline, with a message left to the author with an invitation to the

1704: 1683: 1673: 1664: 1652: 1640: 1610: 1563: 1556: 1543: 1526: 1502: 1481: 1443: 1416: 1391: 1371: 1343: 1320: 1297: 1278: 1259: 1221: 905:"Knowledge (XXG) had rejected Nobel Prize winner Donna Strickland because she wasn't famous enough — Quartz" 1622:, and had the Nobel been awarded just a couple months later this draft undoubtedly would have already been 1522: 527:) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., 291:

D. Strickland and G. Mourou, “Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses”, Opt. Commun. 56, 219 (1985)

388: 319: 300: 233: 1540: 1498: 1439: 1274: 409: 976:"Prix Nobel : pourquoi Donna Strickland n'était pas sur Wikipédia avant de remporter celui de physique" 490: 327: 959:"Donna Strickland: Nicht wichtig genug - Knowledge (XXG) verweigerte Nobelpreisträgerin einen Eintrag" 340:

On October 2, 2018, Strickland won a Nobel Prize for Physics. Within 90 minutes of the announcement a

1690: 1586: 1217: 812: 478:. These are declined summarily, with a message to the author that they need to find sources that are 360: 733: 651: 295: 1647: 1594: 749: 535: 425: 315: 241: 802: 721: 713: 655: 609: 1606: 1552: 1315: 1292: 689: 528: 194: 1628: 103: 1660: 1477: 1184: 123: 769: 757: 576: 557: 501: 433: 311: 248: 1636: 1537: 1494: 1450: 1435: 1270: 1255: 341: 190: 1619: 781: 777: 737: 621: 582: 539: 509: 505: 486: 471: 456: 307: 264: 260: 252: 201: 133: 1408: 1361: 1213: 808: 633:

in the article, and whether that information, together with its sources, is sufficient to

405: 392: 182: 1017: 614: 550: 479: 429: 153: 595: 538:(OSA). However, the claim was supported only by a reference to OSA itself, which fails 773: 717: 546: 513: 475: 256: 1761: 1602: 1387: 1339: 1287: 524: 365: 534:

At the time I declined the draft, it made the claim that Strickland was a fellow of

1656: 1488: 1473: 370: 346: 143: 941:"Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Knowledge (XXG) entry" 923:"The 2018 Nobel Prize reminds us that women scientists too often go unrecognized" 542:

as not being independent, and it fails the very first line of PROF which states:

318:(which claims Strickland as past president), and the third is a biography at the 30:

Strickland incident: The reviewer who declined the article gives his perspective.

1632: 1251: 891:"One Knowledge (XXG) Page Is a Metaphor for the Nobel Prize's Record With Women" 376: 314:. The first was published by the author, the second is a biography published by 620:

Where BEFORE comes into play at AfC is when nominating a draft for deletion at

455:, Knowledge (XXG) found it necessary to adopt strict guidelines around editing 232:

made several claims of notability. Strickland is an associate professor at the

113: 1454: 1429: 1400: 1302: 1266: 1227: 1209: 276: 163: 752:

is considered a reliable source. A quick look at our article on the society

807:

Awareness of the issue of gender bias goes beyond Knowledge (XXG) as well.

667:

around to develop this further and see their work successfully reviewed.

240:, she is an associate chair of the physics department, she is a fellow of 1382: 1380:

placeholder until tomorrow, but I'm going to strike the "unambiguously".

1350: 1334: 824: 805:

have worked hard to provide balance, but still more editors are needed.

500:

Determining notability for academics is a notoriously difficult process.

382: 545:

Subjects of biographical articles on Knowledge (XXG) are required to be

608:

Various editors have suggested that this could have been resolved by a

301:

https://uwaterloo.ca/physics-astronomy/people-profiles/donna-strickland

247:

As an academic, the relevant guideline for establishing notability is

1360:, which, frankly, is incredibly confusing and a little hard to take. 516:. The relevant test for this article in PROF is the third criterion: 1585:, and was given several awards, two of which we have articles on - 485:

In that respect, this draft was treated no differently. This was a

594: 296:

https://www.osa.org/en-us/history/biographies/donna-t-strickland/

571:'s requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. 560:, which explains the purpose of notability guidelines, states: 54: 1587:

Research_Corporation#Grants_Programs:_Cottrell_Scholar_Awards

556:

This claim required at least one additional reliable source.

1472:

leaves a more temporary notion such as 'decline (for now)'.

1066: 34: 1517:

How is the OSA not a reliable source for its own officers?

831:

Is the blame on Knowledge (XXG), the media, the research? "

177:, and what can be learned from it, by the reviewer himself. 259:, including the section on requiring verifiable evidence ( 581:

to all articles, not solely articles justified under the

1598: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1247:

As for the news coverage - re-write it in your mind as

1200: 1193: 1173: 1031: 1003: 989: 508:, which means that it is used as an alternative to the 466:. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. 432:, and that independent sources are not required for 1198:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try 1601:to be simply templated and left ignored in limbo. 208:, particularly as it pertains to women working in 708:Require a BEFORE search when declining AfC drafts 287:There were three sources provided in the draft: 255:does not apply to this article, but the rest of 855:Knowledge (XXG) Seigenthaler biography incident 829: 816: 306:Of these, none were independent as required by 793:be a conversation for the community to have.) 815:tweeted in response to this media attention: 561: 543: 517: 460: 351: 269: 8: 650:Presently the flowchart makes no mention of 244:(OSA), and she won three additional awards. 772:does not require independent sourcing, yet 563:* We require the existence of at least one 934: 932: 1768:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2018-10 970: 968: 870:Notability in the English Knowledge (XXG) 1655:(not a fellow) feel equally embarassed. 764:Resolve discrepancies between PROF and N 18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 1201: 1177: 1034:. 3 October 2018 – via Knowledge (XXG). 992:. 3 October 2018 – via Knowledge (XXG). 881: 835:" says a young researcher on Twitter. " 70: 1615: 1357: 1234:for accepted articles - and even that 961:. 4 October 2018 – via Spiegel Online. 580: 860:List of Knowledge (XXG) controversies 740:, could be used as a starting point. 579:specifically states that it applies " 567:so that the article can comply with 29: 7: 459:. The BLP policy says, in its lede: 797:Be grateful for the media attention 1648:The_Optical_Society#OSA_presidents 1595:The_Optical_Society#OSA_presidents 768:Various editors have claimed that 443:Policy, guidelines, and procedures 56: 28: 1183:These comments are automatically 939:Cecco, Leyland (3 October 2018). 744:Clearly identify reliable sources 889:Koren, Marina (2 October 2018). 193:. The draft had been created by 148: 138: 128: 118: 108: 98: 88: 1718:: doing it for free since 2005. 1018:"Katherine Muahahar on Twitter" 294:The Optical Society Biography: 228:At the time I reviewed it, the 1194:add the page to your watchlist 865:Gender bias on Knowledge (XXG) 206:gender bias on Knowledge (XXG) 1: 1705:22:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC) 1684:02:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC) 1236:is currently being challenged 782:specific notability guideline 506:specific notability guideline 448:Biographies of living persons 1665:04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC) 1641:01:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC) 1611:11:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC) 1573:, is that the article gets 1564:09:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC) 1544:19:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC) 1527:18:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC) 1503:23:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 1482:22:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 1444:18:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 1417:16:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 1392:05:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 1372:04:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 1344:04:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 1321:22:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 1298:21:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 1279:21:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 1260:20:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 1222:19:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 521:National Academy of Sciences 510:general notability guideline 457:biographies of living people 253:general notability guideline 1583:Chirped pulse amplification 583:general notability criteria 238:chirped pulse amplification 1784: 699:Attract more AfC reviewers 551:reliable secondary sources 1591:Sloan Research Fellowship 803:WikiProject Women in Red 462:We must get the article 257:the notability guideline 1653:Royal Society of Canada 1358:unambiguously erroneous 1327:I consider the decline 736:, a similar project at 690:The author of the draft 408:, the talk page of the 1631:has conferred on AfC. 1232:reviewing instructions 1191:. To follow comments, 1071: 1006:– via Knowledge (XXG). 842: 821: 600: 573: 555: 533: 487:single-purpose account 468: 358:Similar articles from 356: 320:University of Waterloo 273: 234:University of Waterloo 39: 1070: 748:It is not clear that 598: 591:Articles for Creation 472:Articles for Creation 453:Seigenthaler incident 202:Articles for Creation 38: 1577:, and the user gets 1187:from this article's 813:Wikimedia Foundation 683:Attract more editors 569:No original research 224:Claims of notability 181:On May 23, 2018, I ( 750:The Optical Society 536:The Optical Society 426:The Optical Society 322:, where she works. 316:The Optical Society 242:The Optical Society 204:project, and about 175:Strickland incident 71:Strickland incident 1178:Discuss this story 1072: 628:Judging notability 601: 529:Fellow of the IEEE 236:, she co-invented 45:← Back to Contents 40: 1538:Peter (Southwood) 1463: 1319: 1202:purging the cache 1163:From the archives 1123:Technology report 1113:Discussion report 1032:"User talk:Bradv" 990:"User talk:Bradv" 599:The AfC flowchart 326:talk page or the 50:View Latest Issue 1775: 1752: 1703: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1599:Donna Strickland 1562: 1492: 1461: 1458: 1433: 1404: 1369: 1364: 1354: 1318: 1295: 1290: 1286:about cricket. 1250: 1205: 1203: 1197: 1176: 1133:Special report 2 1093:From the editors 1090: 1082: 1075: 1058: 1050: 1036: 1035: 1028: 1022: 1021: 1014: 1008: 1007: 1000: 994: 993: 986: 980: 979: 972: 963: 962: 955: 949: 948: 936: 927: 926: 919: 913: 912: 901: 895: 894: 886: 565:secondary source 283:Reliable sources 191:Donna Strickland 166: 152: 151: 142: 141: 132: 131: 122: 121: 112: 111: 102: 101: 92: 91: 62: 60: 58: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1748: 1746: 1741: 1736: 1731: 1726: 1719: 1711: 1710: 1700:Please ping me! 1699: 1695: 1691: 1689: 1555: 1486: 1474:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1448: 1427: 1402: 1367: 1362: 1348: 1293: 1288: 1248: 1207: 1199: 1192: 1181: 1180: 1174:+ Add a comment 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1148:Recent research 1083: 1080:28 October 2018 1078: 1076: 1073: 1062: 1061: 1056: 1053: 1048: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1030: 1029: 1025: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1002: 1001: 997: 988: 987: 983: 974: 973: 966: 957: 956: 952: 938: 937: 930: 921: 920: 916: 903: 902: 898: 888: 887: 883: 878: 851: 809:Katherine Maher 799: 790: 776:, particularly 766: 746: 730: 710: 701: 685: 676: 664: 644: 630: 606: 593: 499: 451:After the 2005 450: 445: 430:reliable source 401: 339: 285: 226: 221: 178: 168: 167: 161: 160: 159: 158: 149: 139: 129: 119: 109: 99: 89: 83: 80: 69: 65: 63: 57:28 October 2018 53: 52: 47: 41: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 1781: 1779: 1771: 1770: 1760: 1759: 1747: 1742: 1737: 1732: 1727: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1686: 1667: 1643: 1613: 1566: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1533: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1420: 1419: 1395: 1394: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1324: 1323: 1300: 1282: 1281: 1263: 1262: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1182: 1179: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1160: 1155: 1150: 1145: 1140: 1135: 1130: 1128:Special report 1125: 1120: 1118:Traffic report 1115: 1110: 1105: 1103:News and notes 1100: 1095: 1089: 1077: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1054: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1038: 1037: 1023: 1009: 1004:"Deletion log" 995: 981: 964: 950: 928: 914: 896: 880: 879: 877: 874: 873: 872: 867: 862: 857: 850: 847: 798: 795: 789: 786: 784:such as PROF. 765: 762: 745: 742: 729: 726: 709: 706: 700: 697: 684: 681: 675: 672: 663: 660: 643: 640: 629: 626: 605: 602: 592: 589: 498: 495: 482:of the topic. 470:Especially at 449: 446: 444: 441: 400: 397: 338: 335: 304: 303: 298: 292: 284: 281: 263:) does apply. 225: 222: 220: 217: 189:article about 180: 171: 170: 169: 157: 156: 146: 136: 126: 116: 106: 96: 85: 84: 81: 75: 74: 73: 72: 67: 66: 64: 61: 48: 43: 42: 33: 32: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1780: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1763: 1751: 1745: 1740: 1735: 1730: 1725: 1717: 1706: 1702: 1694: 1687: 1685: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1668: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1565: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1534: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1515: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1431: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1379: 1378: 1373: 1370: 1365: 1359: 1352: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1330: 1329:unambiguously 1326: 1325: 1322: 1317: 1316:Seraphimblade 1312: 1308: 1304: 1301: 1299: 1296: 1291: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1204: 1195: 1190: 1186: 1175: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1156: 1154: 1151: 1149: 1146: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1136: 1134: 1131: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1121: 1119: 1116: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1104: 1101: 1099: 1096: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1081: 1074:In this issue 1069: 1060: 1052: 1033: 1027: 1024: 1019: 1013: 1010: 1005: 999: 996: 991: 985: 982: 977: 971: 969: 965: 960: 954: 951: 946: 942: 935: 933: 929: 924: 918: 915: 910: 906: 900: 897: 892: 885: 882: 875: 871: 868: 866: 863: 861: 858: 856: 853: 852: 848: 846: 841: 839: 834: 827: 826: 820: 814: 810: 806: 804: 796: 794: 787: 785: 783: 779: 775: 771: 763: 761: 759: 755: 751: 743: 741: 739: 735: 727: 725: 723: 719: 715: 707: 705: 698: 696: 693: 691: 682: 680: 674:Going forward 673: 671: 668: 661: 659: 657: 653: 648: 641: 639: 636: 627: 625: 623: 618: 616: 611: 603: 597: 590: 588: 586: 584: 578: 575:Furthermore, 572: 570: 566: 559: 554: 552: 548: 541: 537: 532: 530: 526: 525:Royal Society 522: 515: 511: 507: 503: 496: 494: 492: 488: 483: 481: 477: 473: 467: 465: 458: 454: 447: 442: 440: 437: 435: 431: 427: 421: 419: 415: 411: 407: 398: 396: 394: 390: 385: 384: 379: 378: 373: 372: 367: 363: 362: 355: 349: 348: 343: 336: 334: 331: 329: 323: 321: 317: 313: 309: 302: 299: 297: 293: 290: 289: 288: 282: 280: 278: 272: 268: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 245: 243: 239: 235: 231: 223: 218: 216: 213: 211: 207: 203: 198: 196: 192: 188: 185:) declined a 184: 176: 165: 155: 147: 145: 137: 135: 127: 125: 117: 115: 107: 105: 97: 95: 87: 86: 78: 59: 51: 46: 37: 23: 19: 1715: 1671: 1623: 1571:this article 1469: 1465: 1381: 1333: 1328: 1310: 1306: 1208: 1157: 1108:In the media 1086:all comments 1026: 1012: 998: 984: 953: 945:the Guardian 944: 917: 908: 899: 884: 843: 836: 832: 830: 823: 817: 800: 791: 767: 747: 731: 711: 702: 694: 686: 677: 669: 665: 649: 647:checkpoint. 645: 634: 631: 619: 607: 574: 562: 544: 518: 484: 469: 463: 461: 438: 422: 414:Women in Red 406:my talk page 402: 389:George Smith 381: 375: 371:The Guardian 369: 359: 357: 352: 347:The Atlantic 345: 332: 324: 305: 286: 274: 270: 246: 227: 219:Draft review 214: 199: 179: 94:PDF download 1750:Suggestions 1627:importance 1519:73.222.1.26 1495:Nosebagbear 1451:Nosebagbear 1436:Nosebagbear 1309:article on 1271:Nosebagbear 1185:transcluded 1059:"Opinion" → 788:Abolish AfC 754:at the time 728:AfC sorting 480:independent 410:new article 377:Der Spiegel 342:new article 337:Nobel Prize 144:X (Twitter) 1579:a template 1575:a template 1214:Randy Kryn 876:References 734:WP:DELSORT 652:WP:SOFIXIT 514:verifiable 497:Notability 476:notability 393:KalHolmann 277:OSA Fellow 82:Share this 77:Contribute 22:2018-10-28 1744:Subscribe 1692:Santacruz 1294:(discuss) 1189:talk page 1051:"Opinion" 722:WP:NEXIST 656:WP:BEFORE 635:establish 610:WP:BEFORE 399:Reactions 1762:Category 1739:Newsroom 1734:Archives 1716:Signpost 1624:speedied 1603:SilkTork 1413:contribs 1289:Hawkeye7 1138:In focus 1049:Previous 849:See also 825:Le Monde 642:Workflow 491:Teahouse 383:Le Monde 328:Teahouse 267:states: 212:fields. 195:Campbpt0 134:Facebook 124:LinkedIn 114:Mastodon 20:‎ | 1657:Johnbod 1553:Barbara 1489:Kudpung 1470:Decline 1244:behalf. 1158:Opinion 1143:Gallery 811:of the 770:WP:PROF 758:WP:PROF 718:notable 662:Regrets 547:notable 523:or the 350:wrote: 249:WP:PROF 68:Opinion 1633:A2soup 1620:WP:G13 1466:Reject 1252:Cabayi 1153:Humour 909:qz.com 838:world. 828:says: 822:Or as 819:cover. 778:WP:NRV 738:WP:AFD 720:, per 714:BEFORE 622:WP:MFD 604:Before 540:WP:NRV 428:was a 416:, and 380:, and 361:Quartz 265:WP:NRV 261:WP:NRV 251:. The 154:Reddit 104:E-mail 1729:About 1629:ACREQ 1462:– BET 1455:TheDJ 1430:TheDJ 1388:talk 1340:talk 1307:every 1303:Bradv 1267:Bradv 1228:Bradv 1210:Bradv 1098:Op-ed 712:If a 615:WP:RA 504:is a 464:right 230:draft 187:draft 183:Bradv 164:Bradv 16:< 1724:Home 1714:The 1661:talk 1637:talk 1607:talk 1589:and 1523:talk 1499:talk 1478:talk 1464:. 1453:and 1440:talk 1409:talk 1363:Brad 1275:talk 1256:talk 1218:talk 1057:Next 774:WP:N 577:WHYN 558:WHYN 502:PROF 434:PROF 312:PROF 310:and 210:STEM 1383:DGG 1351:DGG 1335:DGG 1311:any 654:or 418:AfC 366:Vox 308:NRV 162:By 79:— 1764:: 1663:) 1639:) 1609:) 1560:✉ 1557:✐ 1542:: 1525:) 1501:) 1480:) 1442:) 1415:) 1411:• 1405:DJ 1401:Th 1390:) 1342:) 1277:) 1258:) 1220:) 1047:← 967:^ 943:. 931:^ 907:. 587:" 531:). 436:. 412:, 374:, 368:, 364:, 1696:⁂ 1680:W 1677:P 1674:T 1672:~ 1659:( 1635:( 1605:( 1521:( 1497:( 1491:: 1487:@ 1476:( 1457:: 1449:@ 1438:( 1432:: 1428:@ 1407:( 1403:e 1386:( 1368:v 1353:: 1349:@ 1338:( 1273:( 1254:( 1238:. 1216:( 1206:. 1196:. 1088:) 1084:( 1020:. 978:. 947:. 925:. 911:. 893:. 840:" 585:. 553:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2018-10-28/Opinion - Knowledge (XXG)

Index