Talk:Catherine M. Klapperich

Maybe the subject passes WP:SCHOLAR?
I may be wrong since I'm very new to the AfC review process, but my initial thought when looking at this was that she might meet WP:SCHOLAR and thus if this draft was moved to mainspace could survive an AfD nomination? She's had honours and appears to be cited numerous times. But I have very limited experience with understanding how notability for scholars works, apart from knowing that the SNG exists, so I could definitely be wrong. Clover moss (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Article definitely passes WP:SCOLAR WP:SCHOLAR based on their being a fellow of AIMBE, etc. although I would change the external links to in line references instead. I actually wondered why I hadn't accepted it initially until I looked at the previous version and saw that none of the fellowship information was in the version that I declined. Gusfriend (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC) 22:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP review
Hi. I noticed you're an NPP reviewer so I wanted your thoughts on something. Thanks for changing external links to inline citations, by the way. I removed the more sources tag since there actually are citations verifying most of the content, even if there's more of a focus on primary ones, but I was wondering if you agree with my course of action here? I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something obvious. Clover moss (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . You seem to be on the right lines! The fellowship sources could potentially have better links, so I've just changed one of them at least. But overall you're right that there's too much of a focus primary sources, so I've just tagged for article for that. As noted above, they are definitely notable though under WP:NACADEMIC clause 3. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)