Talk:Na'Taki Osborne Jelks

Addressing notability concerns
1) "the person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level -- see ref 3, she received a major award from the Obama White House and it's up on their website as cited; and (2) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. -- she was quoted in NYT and People magazine (ref 5), MethanoJen (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * to your first point, Champions of Change is not an academic award, and it has been given to literally hundreds of people over the years of the Obama administration. By itself, this cannot be a sufficient reason for notability, for the same reason not every Rhodes scholar or Supreme Court clerk deserves an article for just that.
 * To your second point: both People article and the NY Times piece describe the subject as an "activist," not as an "environmental scientist and educator" as your article lead does. Apart from that, both sources fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL, as either opinion piece (NYT) and human-interest story (People). Quoting the relevant paragraph: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).
 * I will re-add the maintenance template until the issue is addressed. --bender235 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * could you please elaborate on your rational on why this article meets WP:GNG. How does a single paragraph in an opinion piece together with a human-interest story sum up to "significant coverage"? --bender235 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)