Talk:Adrianne Wadewitz/Archive 1

Talk page formatting
I formatted the talk page, above, and added some relevant WikiProjects. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * o_O Wow that's a lot. Thanks!  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  21:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz deletion discussion notice
There is an ongoing deletion discussion taking place now about whether or not to have a biographical article about Adrianne Wadewitz on Wikipedia.
 * 1) Adrianne Wadewitz
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz

The discussion is at Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

For those newer to Wikipedia, you may wish to read Articles for deletion and Notability.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Notices posted
I've posted notices to some relevant WikiProject talk pages about the deletion discussion. The notice is the same as shown, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also to Wikimedia Gendergap mail list, more for discussion purposes. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Impact of Wikipedia by Adrianne Wadewitz



 * File:The Impact of Wikipedia Adrianne Wadewitz.webm by
 * 1) Featured picture candidates/The Impact of Wikipedia by Adrianne Wadewitz

I've nominated the video file File:The Impact of Wikipedia Adrianne Wadewitz.webm by for Featured Picture candidacy.

The discussion is at Featured picture candidates/The Impact of Wikipedia by Adrianne Wadewitz.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good that this video exists as a memorial to Adrianne. There was also this blog post about her that could be used as a reference: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/10/the-impact-of-wikipedia-adrianne-wadewitz/ Someone might want to add to the caption under the video on her page that that video was produced during Wikimania 2012.Victor Grigas (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's mentioned in the caption at Featured picture candidates/The Impact of Wikipedia by Adrianne Wadewitz. Thank you for that other helpful link, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: This file has been promoted to Featured Picture quality. You can confirm this at: File:The Impact of Wikipedia Adrianne Wadewitz.webm. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Nominated for Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons, at commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Impact of Wikipedia Adrianne Wadewitz.webm. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Skepchickal



 * File:Skepchickal.jpg
 * 1) Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal

I've nominated this photograph by, for Featured Picture consideration.

Discussion is at Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review

 * 1) Adrianne Wadewitz
 * 2) Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1

I've nominated this article Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review.

Discussion is at the peer review subpage, at Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned...
that she served on the board for the Wiki Education Foundation? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I added a sentence. You might see if the sentence about her at Wiki Education Foundation could be expanded further. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Occidental College
I assume Adrianne, as a "postdoctoral fellow", should be categorised as "Occidental College alumni" and not "Occidental College faculty"? Please change, here and on Wikidata, if I'm wrong. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a postdoc is closer to being faculty than student. A postdoc is not studying for any kind of diploma and degree, and their duties may (as, in fact, in this case) include teaching. (Perhaps most accurate to call her "staff.") --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with assessment by, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think postdocs really qualify either as faculty or alumni. There's a gap in our categorization scheme that doesn't really cover them. In most cases it's unimportant because they go on to be faculty elsewhere and can be categorized as such. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Digital humanities
The article could be enhanced by adding more information about her contributions to digital humanities.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
This is a self-published source. It's on a website called Selected Works that bills itself as "A research announcement tool to maximize the readership and impact of your work". As a self-published source, it's no different than LinkedIn in its reliability. I've tagged the source, and am looking for an alternate. If none can be found...


 * This is Occidental University's official digital repository used by faculty to archive their published works.

I've also tagged these sources as they're message board posts and such forum postings are user-generated content that is clearly not acceptable.

And this source never even mentions Wadewitz's name, so its use is obviously original research. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello? See this WP:UCS; you seem to be acting out - vendetta? what's your problem?..Modernist (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And you seem to be making personal attacks. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you a sock puppet of someone who usually edits under an account name? It is implausible that someone just wanders by as an IP editor and knows all the jargon. Edison (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red herring. Of course not. I'm an unregistered editor with a dynamic IP. Are you an inexperienced editor who doesn't know that accusing someone of sockpuppetry without any evidence is not only a violation of AGF, but of WP:NPA? 70.134.226.155 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've gotta say I agree with the assessment of all the sources noted above by with regards to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Accident report
The anchor gear failure is very rare in rock climbing and most fatal accidents end up being carefully studied. It would be interesting to catch accident report which will be likely published somewhere in the future. If someone runs into it please add it to the list of sources. By the way according to one source the accident happen on the climb is called Dwarf Among Midgets. --Jarekt (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't found anything RS to say that it was Dwarf that she fell down, but here's a source about the climb itself:  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At the end of the year the annual Accidents in North American Mountaineering will be published. Almost every climbing or hiking death makes it, and is analyzed in meticulous detail with any mistakes that might have prevented or mitigated the fatality (I hate to say it, but there almost always are) identified. I'm sure that Adrianne's death will make it, and we can use it as a source then. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Supernerd11 I agree with your assessment of info on Dwarf Among Midgets as not exactly RS. That is why I added it here and not in the article. Daniel, thank you for precisely specifying the publication I was alluding to. This accident was already being analyzed in meticulous detail around fires in the Hidden Valley Campground of Joshua Tree National Park, where I was camping in the week of April 5-12. I learned about it that way, without any names or association with Wikipedia (very non RS) as a cautionary tale about human error on the part of whoever build that anchor, as any one of those 3 pieces should have been able to withstand leader's fall, not just body weight. Much was being made (justly or unjustly) out of the fact that Adrianne climbing partner was not clipped to the same anchor. --Jarekt (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is this . I found this the day that she died...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is this too ...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That's just a rehash of the NYT article. It contains only two original sentences - bookends to a long quote from the NYT. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with that all of the sources and links mentioned above in this subsection fail either WP:RS or WP:NOR. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with that all of the sources and links mentioned above in this subsection fail either WP:RS or WP:NOR. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Local obit via Legacy.com


&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice catch! 70.134.226.155 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional source for graduate studies - 2005 article in The Herald-Times
Excerpt from source:

Indiana University graduate students Adrianne Wadewitz and Elizabeth Rytting could have gone somewhere warm Monday to grade papers and work on research. Instead they sat on cold concrete and huddled against the wind in front of Bryan Hall, the IU administration building.

"We're trying to make our work visible to the administration, to remind them of the service we provide," Wadewitz said.

She and Rytting, both doctoral students in the English department, took part in a "grade-in" sponsored by the Graduate Employee Organization, which is trying to form a union of graduate teaching and research assistants.

Members say graduate students work long hours for low pay and few benefits, teaching classes, grading papers, leading discussion sections and helping professors with research.



Above is excerpted quote, and full cite for source, discussing her early activism while a graduate student at Indiana University. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohio and Georgia and Hawaii and Scotland

 * Apparently the article from The New York Times seems to be making the rounds in newspapers in Ohio and Atlanta, Georgia, and Hawaii, and Scotland. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have links to the online newspaper articles? I couldn't find them in the online versions of the newspapers. I'd like to see if these are anything other than a reprinting of the NYT obit. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Accessed via www.pressdisplay.com. They're mostly a rehash of The New York Times article. It seems to have hit syndication both nationally in the United States, and internationally across the planet. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently the article from The New York Times seems to be making the rounds in newspapers in Ohio and Atlanta, Georgia, and Hawaii, and Scotland. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have links to the online newspaper articles? I couldn't find them in the online versions of the newspapers. I'd like to see if these are anything other than a reprinting of the NYT obit. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Accessed via www.pressdisplay.com. They're mostly a rehash of The New York Times article. It seems to have hit syndication both nationally in the United States, and internationally across the planet. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Accessed via www.pressdisplay.com. They're mostly a rehash of The New York Times article. It seems to have hit syndication both nationally in the United States, and internationally across the planet. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

More sources for early life - Omaha World-Herald


Some sources which could be used to expand upon Early life info. Full cites, above, with excerpted quotes from the articles. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC News


C'mon folks, let's not have this edit-warring taking place on this page, let's all be a bit more respectful here, please.

I don't see why there can't be two (2) in-line citations to back up a fact at the end of a sentence, instead of just one.

There certainly is no harm in having two (2) cites for a fact, particularly if one is a secondary source and one is a primary source.

Eventually it'd be best to get the article to a state where it could rely exclusively or at least predominantly on secondary sources.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against using this source--quite the contrary. It is a good source to show that Adrianne was consulted and regarded as an authority on Wikipedia, and specifically on gender issues in Wikipedia. It's not, however, a particularly good or germane source to substantiate the fact that she was on the WEF board. Indeed, rather than Dunican's post, this is probably a better source.
 * As for the notion that we should keep the BBC source merely because it's been mentioned repeatedly at the AFD, or that because I have removed it here I am showing some lack of good faith, that's simply ridiculous and offensive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the first part, the source says: "Adrianne Wadewitz, a fellow at Occidental College who also serves on the board of the Wiki Education Foundation.". As for the 2nd part, I didn't say that. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I'm a) aware of what the BBC article says and b) not suggesting you did. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If one should go, it's the primary source, not this one... --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Self published sources
Anybody has reasonable doubts that she had a thesis accepted? That the title as given in the article is correct? If yes, please give the reasons for those doubts. If no, then please read WP:SELFPUB and remove the silly "self published" tags. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by . However, if there is a question about a particular external link used, the source itself can be cited with the full citation, without the external link given in the cite. That could hopefully be an easy solution to the disagreement. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the issue. The tag does not dispute the title of the dissertation. It merely states that the source for the title (and other paragraphs about her work) is a self-published site. It would be far better to have neutral third-party sources. I've tried unsuccessfully to find some, but I'm done for the day. Can you help? 70.134.226.155 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with it's always best to have secondary sources instead of primary sources. However, if she indeed did post that info herself, then WP:SELFPUB applies and we could cite it. Of course, secondary sources are preferable. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As SELFPUB clearly says, such a site is perfectly acceptable for uncontroversial material. As Cirt says, we can leave out the hyperlink and just cite the thesis (after all, that's a printed source and as such perfectly acceptable without a hyperlink, too). In either case, the tags can go. BTW, a an aside to the other editors here, we should count on some sites going offline in the future and perhaps archive some of them. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea,, perhaps you could help out with that archival process ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit short on time. Here's a link that I have used in the past: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Checklinks (looks like it is still working). --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed (I hope) the reference to the dissertation. It is available online, but the url I get won't help anyone as it pertains to my own institution, via which I accessed ProQuest. I don't see any sign of a permanent url. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Knowing others can access it via ProQuest is enough, a URL is nice but not necessary to satisfy WP:V. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of substituting the canned CMoS citation generated by WorldCat. It has the advantage of linking to the dissertation abstract, making at least the abstract readily available to all readers. That allows them to verify its suitability as a source for the statements where it's cited. What do you think? 70.134.226.155 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Me, I think that ProQuest is a pain in the butt. ;)  As I remember, dissertations used to have a stable url.  Oh well.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC source fails verification
I checked the BBC article. The entire article contains two statements referring to Wadewitz, one being a quote from her and another mentioning that she found sexism and racism when she showed Wikipedia to her class one day. Yet it's used as a source for this statement: "She increasingly became seen as an authority on Wikipedia, and particularly on the encyclopedia's gender issues, and was cited as such by organizations such as the BBC." Nowhere in the BBC article does it describe, or even allude to, Wadewitz as an "authority" on Wikipedia or anything else. Thus, the source fails verification. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't describe her as such, but it does treat her as such. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It treats her as someone who was interviewed for the article. Anything beyond that is original research. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that argument, and have a certain sympathy for it. But I think one can equally argue that she is being interviewed because of her status as an authority.  If not, the article has to be junked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Journalists have many reasons for selecting whom they interview. The interviewee may be chosen for being outspoken, average, interesting, opinionated, or may be an example of a dunderhead, a genius, or a nobody. Sometimes they're looking for someone who can support the journalist's point of view. Often in a time crunch, they'll take whomever they can get. To assert that being interviewed implies that she was chosen because she was an "authority" is pure speculation, IMHO. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can't assert she is an authority just because she has been interviewed. I was once interviewed by US News and World Report about childhood sleep problems, just because I had written a relevant review on Amazon.  However, there's something to be drawn from how she is interviewed, as Jbmurray says -- though I don't think we can take that very far; we need something fairly direct to say she is an authority.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To and fro
Regarding this edit, the point that 70.134.226.155 seems to miss is that the phrases quoted come from page vi. Hence the importance of proper attribution. The order number is also part of the citation. (Check with ProQuest.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In no style manual that I'm aware of (CMoS, MLA, APA) is an order number part of a citation. BTW, condescension is not very becoming and will get you nowhere. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing condescending about it. For what it's worth, though, this is ProQuest's own suggested citation format:


 * Wadewitz, A. (2011). 'Spare the sympathy, spoil the child:' sensibility, selfhood, and the maturing reader, 1775--1815. (Order No. 3466388, Indiana University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,, 324. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/884792113?accountid=14656. (884792113).


 * Now, this doesn't fit easily either with Wikipedia citation templates or with any styleguide. But here is a page on citing dissertations, in which the order number appears prominently in every case. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be pedantic, your link is a guide to citing American dissertations that you obtained through ProQuest/UMI. In almost all cases when I have cited dissertations, I have either a paper copy of the dissertation or I retrieved an online copy that the author made available, and in many cases the dissertation is not American. I believe that it is more appropriate in such cases to cite the school whose dissertation it is and (if online) the url. I usually use citation with the school in question and Ph.D. thesis. But in this case if it is only available through ProQuest then I guess something resembling their recommended format is the way to go.
 * Here are some examples of how Dissertation Abstracts has been cited in Wikipedia: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Not a single one includes an order number. But I'm sure your authoritative knowledge bests that of the dozens of editors who added those citations, so it would be helpful if you fixed the citations in those articles. While you're at it, here are over a thousand more for you to fix. Good luck! 70.134.226.155 (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies
"We brought in an innovative group of young digital humanists led by Adrianne Wadewitz, who redesigned the journal using WordPress, and we reimagined our mission as one intimately connected to changing forms of scholarship.

...

(3.) I serve as the general editor of what is otherwise an entirely collaborative enterprise, shared by eight editors and an innovative and revolving group of Web builders. The founding editors of the journal were Emily Bowles, Jennifer Golightly, Judy Hayden, Aleksondra Hultquist, Laura Runge, and Kirsten Saxton. Current members also include Anne Greenfield, Robin Runia, and Debbie Welham. Web team has included: Greenfield, Adrianne Wadewitz, Tanya Caldwell, Alaina Pincus, and Leah Thomas."




 * Some interesting tidbits in Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, could be used in the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Career section
This section is way too detailed. For major academic figures we generally limit ourselves to presenting the 3 most important papers (rarely 5). Wadewitz is not notable for being an academic, so although this should be mentioned, we should hold back a little when describing her career. Presentations during panels at meetings are almost always minor things in an academic's career and rarely if ever mention in academic bios. (Exceptions are made if there's something unusual: a disruption, announcement of a major breakthrough, stuff like that). In any case, this section needs to be pared down. --Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know that these 3 vs 5 numbers are accurate, but I agree that the article currently contains too much uninteresting detail about titles and publication venues of her academic publications. As one example, I don't see the point of having a separate "doctoral dissertation" section as well as having a whole paragraph about the dissertation earlier. It looks like padding and I don't think we need to pad this article (or any other...) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs Seminar
Excerpt from source, full cite below:

"BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- The following information was released by Indiana University - Bloomington:

College students usually write their papers for an audience of one -- their instructor. But students this fall in an Indiana University Bloomington class will be writing for a much larger group of readers.

In a graduate seminar taught by Barry Rubin, a professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, students will produce articles for Wikipedia, the vast online encyclopedia that is written and edited by an online community and visited by hundreds of millions of people a day.

"I'm delighted to be involved in this project," said Rubin, one of eight policy experts from the academic and nonprofit communities to be named to the advisory board for the Public Policy Initiative. "It's exciting that our students will have a part to play in something that is changing the world. This is what SPEA is about -- making a difference in the world."

SPEA Professor Barry Rubin talks with students in a seminar that will produce public-policy articles for Wikipedia.

Indiana University SPEA is one of five leading public-policy programs where the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia, is debuting its Public Policy Initiative, a pilot project to bring Wikipedia editing to the classroom. Georgetown, George Washington, Harvard and Syracuse universities also are participating.

"The Wikimedia Foundation is excited to partner with Indiana University and Professor Rubin for this Initiative," said Frank Schulenburg, head of public outreach for the Wikimedia Foundation. "We look forward to seeing how Professor Rubin's students improve the economic-development articles on Wikipedia, while also learning fact-based writing styles, critical thinking skills, what is a good source and collaborative writing processes."

As part of the initiative, the foundation provided three days of training in Washington, D.C., for Campus Ambassadors at each institution, instructing them on how to teach Wikipedia editing in the classroom. IU Campus Ambassadors are Ellie Dahlgren with the IU Teaching and Learning Technologies Centers, Chanitra Bishop of IU Libraries and graduate student Adrianne Wadewitz."



Some info from above might be useful for the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tracking down citations and sources
Cirt, you really are doing sterling work here, tracking down all these citations and sources. Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, your words are most kind! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times and Omaha World-Herald



 * Another major article with original material, in addition to previous in The New York Times. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Has some original info including original interview with friend Molly Vetter. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Alternate link/source to Omaha World-Herald. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Bustle.com. Has some original info as well. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In the print edition of the LA Times, it's pp. AA1 and AA4. Which is to say, it's on the front page of the second section rather than buried in the back of the section where they put most of the obits. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's impressive, thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article from the Los Angeles Times has now appeared in The Washington Post. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the Chicago Tribune Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update,, most appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update,, most appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

More cites to buttress notability
The AfD has now been closed as keep, but I'm going to add a couple more cites here to further support the notability argument, just for the record, should the issue ever get re-opened. I'm not going to add them to the article, because they're republications of articles originally published in other papers, but while not independent sources from the point of establishing fact, they count as two more independent editorial decisions by WP:RS.


 * The Washington Post has re-published the LA Times obit, here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/adrianne-wadewitz-wikipedia-contributor-dies-at-37/2014/04/25/42ceecd8-cc95-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html


 * Sydney Morning Herald has re-published the NY Times, here: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/adrianne-wadewitz-a-persnickety-factobsessed-wikipedia-editor-20140425-zqzdi.html

Both the Washington Post and SMH are generally regarded as newspapers of record, so that now makes four major newspapers of record having published obituaries.

-- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've just seen that the respected Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera has published an obit: http://seigradi.corriere.it/2014/04/21/addio-ad-adrianne-wadewitz-paladina-delle-donne-su-wikipedia/ That now makes five internationally-recognised newspapers having published obits. This also appears to be an original obit, so I'll add it to the article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, literally secondary source coverage from across the globe, thank you! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The SMH also republished her last blog post as part of their obituary coverage. I've attempted a summary for the article (I think documenting the major newspapers who published obits is a valid part of covering her, plus its republication shows editorial independence and lets us quote it a bit more), but if you just want a quick link: http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-adrianne-wadewitz-learnt-to-embrace-failure-20140425-zqzgx.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

Worth watching
Apparently, there's an effort to create an annual prize in her name. Probably not worth adding yet - they're still fundraising - but worth keeping an eye on, as if it does come off, it'd be a worthy addition to the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a most interesting development. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to user page
Should this article contain a link to her WP user page (User:Wadewitz), perhaps in the "See also" or "External links" section? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Putting on the talk page should be enough (see Talk:xkcd), but that seems to be for living editors who've got possible conflict of interest.  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  00:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Struggle with Self-Reference Amid the Passing of One of Its Own
Update: The deletion discussion itself has received coverage at: &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems like something good to mention in the article, similar to that one guy who had all the controversy surrounding his article after someone added in that he may have had something to do with Kennedy's assassination (I can't for the life of me remember his name right now). Any idea how to add it in without being really awkward or self-promotional?  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  14:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I believe the article(s) you are thinking of is John Seigenthaler and Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's who it was! Anyway, I went ahead and added a couple of sentences at the end of the section about her death, let's see how long it takes before it's reverted ^^;  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Publications.
I think we should be including far more of her publications in the list. http://works.bepress.com/adrianne_wadewitz/ is a list of most of her major publications - which I believe she compiled - and, while we may not include all of them, I don't think that including more would go amiss. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Boston Globe
Adrianne Wadewitz is the subject of an original editorial in today's edition of The Boston Globe. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

La Tercera
Quotes her here, but doesn't appear to have realized she had died - looks like a translation of a BBC report on Wikipedia's women problem. http://www.latercera.com/noticia/tendencias/2014/04/659-573761-9-por-que-tan-pocas-mujeres-escriben-en-wikipedia.shtml Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

PBS NewsHour


You can view the news report at the link, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So, what do we need to do to get this up to GA? As I see it, we need to check our sources for missing information, and fix up her list of works to include the missing ones. We might want to use one or two primary sources to add a little colour as well, so long as it supports facts from the secondary sources. Anything else? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more info from secondary sources that could be added -- including some I've helpfully identified and excerpted from, higher up on this talk page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also watch this program directly on YouTube. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Show don't tell
Does anyone else think it odd that there's no link to her User page? I'd like to see her contributions list! —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good practise not to link from articles to user space, but it's different on their talk: User:Wadewitz --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I used srlink to add a link in the infobox, where it'll be unobtrusive. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted a relevant question at Template_talk:Connected_contributor. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

File:The Impact of Wikipedia Adrianne Wadewitz.webm to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Impact of Wikipedia Adrianne Wadewitz.webm will be appearing as picture of the day on January 6, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-01-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ABO: Interactive Journal for Women in the Arts, 1640-1830



 * Academic journal dedicated its entire issue to Wadewitz.


 * Read more at "Adrianne Wadewitz, 1977-2014", by Laura Runge.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Year in review video
Victor Grigas (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lives They Lived Remembering some of those we lost this year.


More recent article from The New York Times Magazine.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost - feature - A decade of the Signpost
Mention at Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Anniversary. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)