Talk:Adriana Briscoe


 * Nanobright (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC) beginning to expand article on Adriana Briscoe, after preliminary edits updated class to C with ORES script quality evaluation
 * Nanobright (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC) completed article improvement and updating content. submitted article as a GAN for the women in red project per discussion w/wikipedians and article quality evaluation with ORES script
 * beginning process of editing article per response to GAN review, specific edits will be updated line for line in the review Nanobright (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Some feedback
, I've had a brief look through this article, and it's looking pretty solid to me. Nice work! I have a few suggestions that may help it successfully pass the GA process: (1) Doublecheck to make sure all content in the body of your article is cited. The majority of your content looks well-cited, but you have a few sentences without any sourcing, primarily in the 'Research, career, and service' section (plus a few of Briscoe's listed awards). I think you should consider cutting the whole first paragraph of 'Research, career, and service', as this paragraph is just a summary of the rest of your content (and it's already been covered in your article's lead section, right?). (2) Organize your list of Briscoe's 'Selected publications' to make it easier to read through (it seems pretty random at the moment). Organizing it alphabetically by author surname might be the simplest route. (3) Check your list of references to ensure the bibliographic information is accurate -- sometimes it gets jumbled when you generate citations, and I noticed that the Robin Arnette reference looked like it needed attention. Good luck with this nomination! If you have any questions, just ask. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you so much for taking the time. I have been having a little trouble with the citation addition and formatting lately (people have been helping out here and there when they find errors) but I'm concerned things might be linked to using the new beta editing platform. Will def go back through this one and also clean up the the Research section. There are some addt'l details I'd like to add on her research findings especially on a class of opsins in a different wavelength regime than is currently mentioned but I haven't yet the time yet to read those papers. I'll also go ahead and organize the publications by thematic area or timeline like I've done on some other pages. will likely ping you quickly again once that's wrapped up so you can take a second look. thanks again Nanobright (talk)

Hi, I'm new to the protocols of Wikipedia and just wanted to mention that while it is true that in the original 2005 Current Biology article, I was mentioned in the acknowledgements section, I was subsequently added as a co-author to the 2005 paper in an erratum which corrected an oversight (see https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(06)01322-4 ) Both Google Scholar and Pubmed citations include me as a co-author of the 2005 paper, reflecting this correction. Best, Adriana Adbriscoe (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the added info about this Adriana. To share a bit, this and another article (Susan Kauzlarich) were recommended as good articles per a machine learning script (ORES) for wikipedia article quality I learned about in the WikiEdu scientists + scholars class I took this spring. As you can see for the reviews from wikipedians that came back on both articles they unfortunately didn't meet the mark. As I'm also learning wikipedia, this was a new situation (and not exactly expected based on other in-person feedback I had received on both articles). So I reached out to Women in Red last week with some questions about the process. The good news is that it sounded like the reviews aren't a cause for article deletion which was my first concern. With this said, I'd like to try to address as many of the points they brought up not necessarily towards another attempt at good article status but to make sure the article is in the best shape possible. I'm trying to loop in some additional folks to help with this so this is just a heads up that some changes + line-by-line responses to the review might be popping up on the main article and also this talk page over the next week. All the best, Alexandra Nanobright (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

GAN update

 * Following up, this is an update that I've gone ahead and addressed some of the concerns listed in the GAN review and also line by line in the talk above to assist future editors. Since wikipedia is based on collaborative editing and is also a living document, I'm going ahead and leaving things outside of my experience as-is since I'm hoping other contributors will be able to assist in improving this article over time.
 * One overarching concern I will bring up is that based on my personal experience so far on wikipedia (and in doing some research on other biographies over the past week) there were a couple concerning things in the review. Specifically requesting pruning of Awards + honors, # of listed publications flagged as too many, comparison of this scientists' total publication record to total publication of other scientists in an unspecified career, age, research field group. Additionally, factual information regarding the scientist's personal cultural and ethnic identity in the public domain was flagged as "politicized". I am not experienced enough with wikipedia to know if these are common concerns with biographies of living persons or those specifically associated with the high standards Good Article Nominees however it would be my personal preference to not prune this biography in those areas since to the best of my knowledge this isn't currently implemented for other scientific biographies
 * I'd also like to reiterate my thanks for the opportunity to see a bit more behind the scenes of the GAN review process. This has been very helpful context to learn more about how wikipedia works behind the scenes + has really helped me think through some considerations associated w/introducing wikipedia editing as science outreach in academic settings. Alexandra Nanobright (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)