Talk:Andrea M. Matwyshyn

@CommanderWaterford Thank you for your feedback. I spent some time reading to better understand your comments along with the standards and criteria for submitting a page. I first looked at some other pages you were involved in and ran into some confusion. For example, you approved pages that contain significantly fewer citations than this one including Sherry Wu, Giuseppe Arbia, and Nicolás Atanes. I believe I am still not understanding some nuances of this process when comparing these pages and others you approved, while rejecting this one.

Looking at the WP:NACADEMIC requirements, I would like to provide my feedback on the required criteria that an academic meet any of the one criteria, and point out that Matwyshyn appears to meet five of the eight:
 * “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” - as mentioned in the article, “her work on the Internet of Bodies (IoB) was used as a springboard for reports on the topic by Rand Corporation and the World Economic Forum.”
 * “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.” - as mentioned in the article, US/UK Fulbright Cyber Security award
 * “The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).” - as mentioned in the article, “fellow in residence at the John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress” and “part of an IEEE team of technology experts who generate annual trend predictions” and “Microsoft Visiting Professor of Information Technology Policy at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy in the School of Public and International Affairs and Department of Computer Science”
 * “The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.” - as mentioned in the article, Associate Dean of Innovation and Technology at Penn State Law, founding director of the Penn State Policy Innovation Lab of Tomorrow (PILOT lab), founding director of the Penn State Manglona Lab
 * “The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.” - as mentioned in the article, “served as an academic in residence/senior policy advisor at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission” and “testified before the Copyright Office in a successful petition to obtain an exemption to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act”, and author at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awsj.com+%22By+Andrea+M.+Matwyshyn%22)

Regarding "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." - The draft article has citations including scholar.google.com, William & Mary Law Review, techpolicy.com, Federal Trade Commission, Forbes, Washington Post, Library of Congress, TechCrunch, Stanford University Press, Wall Street Journal, and The Hill among others. Based on my reading of the policy, at least a couple of those qualify as reliable sources.

If this doesn’t clarify how the draft article meets criteria, any additional help or guidance you can provide on these policies would be appreciated. Thank you. Jericho347 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are an experienced editor, so unless you have a conflict of interest with the topic, the Articles for creation process is an optional one for you. You may move Draft:Andrea M. Matwyshyn to article space yourself and let it take its chances. If you're looking for advice, though, here is mine:
 * The lead is supposed to make it clear why Matwyshyn is notable. The only specific thing it points to is, "She is credited with originating the legal and policy concept of the Internet of Bodies", for which her October 2019 paper is cited. First of all, claims that this concept has had a significant impact in the field of law cannot be substantiated by her own paper, but must be supported by independent sources. In the body of the article you mention and cite two independent reports on the topic, which is better, but probably not enough. Secondly, her 2019 paper has been cited only 20 times, which makes it hard to believe the concept is a big enough deal to meet WP:PROF criterion 1. Law isn't my field, but to me the much larger idea that people have a legal right to privacy would be the sort of significant new concept that Wikipedia is looking for.
 * A Fullbright research grant is certainly a nice thing, but they're awarded fairly broadly. The notes for criterion 2 give Guggenheim Fellowships as an example of a less significant academic award that nevertheless confers sufficient academic prestige. There are about 175 Guggenheim Fellowships a year. There are an order of magnitude more Fulbright grants, 8,000 a year; they aren't as exclusive.
 * With respect to criterion 3, "has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)", reviewers tend to read that very literally. Being part of an IEEE team of technology experts doesn't fit either part of the criterion. Neither does being Microsoft Visiting Professor at [anywhere]. Being a fellow in residence at the John W. Kluge Center might satisfy this criterion. Indeed, I think it's your best chance of demonstrating notability, and should be mentioned in the lead. The catch is that the Kluge Center brings together people who are tops in their field with up and coming scholars. If they brought her in for the former reason, then she's notable, but not if they brought her in for the latter reason. Can you find more information about why she received the fellowship?
 * Criterion 5 is another that reviewers read quite literally. Named chairs are common in the US, and being Associate Dean of ..., founding director of ..., and founding director of ... is not holding a named chair.
 * For criterion 7, writing for The Wall Street Journal might qualify if you can show she is frequently quoted in non-academic media as an academic expert in technology policy as it relates to law and computer security. Testifying before the Copyright Office and being a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission don't really move the bubble here.
 * Having reviewed your arguments, I'm not convinced that Matwyshyn is notable, but see a chance that she is. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)