Talk:Heather Ingman

Notability
A New Page Patroller reviewed the article, and made no proposed changes - but asked for more evidence of Notability. This professor is a visible, cited and active figure in literature and women's studies, so I was surprised, but anyway I have checked Scopus, and one item, at least, the major work of 2009, is logged as cited more than 20 times, so I think that substantiates the point. But I ask WP Ireland or others to double-check me, and rate the article.Twilson r (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, T Wilson, and welcome back. I will rate now, and revert to work further on it later.SeoR (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As promised, I return to this. First I note, even more after 000s of articles reviewed across 2018 - I believe that the majority of academics listed in Wikipedia do not meet the (high) standards set in the current guideline, which in turn seem much more rigorous than the level reached by the vast majority of articles on sportspeople, for example.  As I believe that Wikipedia should capture widely, I see no issue here.  But in this case, I review against the guideline, specifically focusing on Criterion 1, influence / uptake / citation.
 * So, in terms of evidence of notability, as per the guideline the humanities tend to be under-counted and hard-to-assess using citation records such as those from Scopus (which neglect, for example, book chapters). So of this professor's dozens of peer-reviewed published works, just 6 appear in Scopus; at least 1 of those shows wide citation, 23 occurences.  OK, but we need more.  The guideline then suggests that this be supplemented by a check on holdings in academic libraries, which says something about academic interest, probable use of the academic's works, and influence.  I will revert further on this.SeoR (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having dug into this in the academic meta-catalog WorldCat and with some direct searches, and, also, comparing to a small sample of other academic texts, I see that some of Ingman's works have become widely held, three to a very significant degree, which I do believe establishes notability within her field. This point is further substantiated by editions and reprints (several works with 10-18 releases).  Key works supporting this point are topical studies / surveys on aspects of women's and Irish fiction, and a thematic anthology: "Women's fiction between the wars: mothers, daughters, and writing" - held in a remarkable 1410 libraries, "Irish women's fiction: from Edgeworth to Enright" - at 805 libraries, "A history of the Irish short story" - at 669 libraries, and then "Twentieth-century fiction by Irish women: nation and gender" at 280, and "Mothers and daughters in the twentieth century: a literary anthology" at 223.  A quick check also shows various of these works on academic course reading lists.SeoR (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions
1) explain or link academic terms; what, for example, is Kristevan analysis? 2) add thematic summaries before or after each list of works, addressing perspectives of academic work or keybtheses, and the semi-autobiographical tropes in some of the fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.237.238 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions, and I will give it a try. I did notice that the professor uses this "Kristevan anaysis" - apparently a method linked to Julia Kristeva - in multiple papers, so I will see if I can amplify. And I see a need indeed to say more about her interests and methods, but this area of study is not mine, so I must explore a little.Twilson r (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Uni of Aberdeen
Ingman also did some research and talks locally, while hubbie headed up the modern competitor outfit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.236.170 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Family
Parents: David and Elizabeth Ingman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.29.211 (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Referencing papers list
I notice that the editors from the Irish project, and Bathory? and London, have all taken it as read that the papers are covered by the lists in the external sources section. Is this sufficient? I guess so. A decent article, only heard the professor once, but this captures the essence, I feel.80.110.31.59 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As one of the aforementioned WP Ireland editors, I have added a citation covering even more papers than are listed up to 2015, albeit it does not cover those added by various hands most recently. If I find a reference for those, I will add that too.SeoR (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)