Talk:Orit Peleg

Notability
I think this article meets the notability criteria 1 (the person's work has been covered by New York Times, Forbes, and other major media outlets) and I also think it may meet criteria 2 (the Cottrell Scholar Award from Research Corporation and the CAREER award from the NSF). I am less sure about the second, but I am planning to remove the notability tag because I think it still meets criteria 1. ProfessorCuprous (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi The Cottrell Scholar Award is an early-career award (as per Research_Corporation) and is not sufficient for meeting criteria 2 of WP:NPROF. The CAREER award you mention doesn't seem to be even mentioned on the article? The Junior Scientific Award and the grant mentioned on the article are also not sufficient. The level of citations on https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xH5Ryy4AAAAJ is not high enough to show notability, and if anything looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Being covered in news outlets also does not show significant impact on the scholary discipline to meet criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. So I do not believe the article meets WP:NPROF. However the news articles may give a case for notability under WP:GNG, which is why I didn't propose the article for deletion. I've not done a thorough check of the sources, but for example looking at https://www.npr.org/2021/07/08/1014398709/some-swarms-of-fireflies-will-synchronize-their-flashes-heres-how?t=1657302349357 that's just effectively a passing mention of Orit Peleg with a quote, and not significant coverage in my view. Similar with for example https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/smell-ya-honeybees-track-queens-scent-maps/story?id=76982601. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for the explanation about awards. My mistake about CAREER. And in response to the comments about the NPR coverage: The article mentioned her name once, but the audio clip interviews her. And, the coverage is about a scientific publication in Scientific Advances in which she was one of the two lead authors. If you just search for her name in the text from that specific article, it seems like passing mention, but in the larger context it I think it is significant coverage of her work. Further, the coverage of her work extends far beyond that one NPR article. Her work is covered in outlets ranging across a broad range of target audiences and she is interviewed and/or named in all of them. ProfessorCuprous (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I admit I'd not listened to the audio clip, but interviews are generally primary sources and we need secondary sources to show notability as per WP:PST. I'd also be looking for significant coverage of the person rather than just her work to meet WP:SIGCOV. I'm not convinced either way, so I'm not going to remove the tag myself (or take it to WP:AFD), but wouldn't object if someone uninvolved does. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for pointing out the difference between the academic criteria 2 WP:NPROF, and the more general notability criteria WP:GNG. I forgot to mention that in my earlier post. I also want to clarify, and perhaps get a better understanding about the coverage of Peleg's work and how it falls into notability. Regarding the NPR article where she was interviewed - it is not just an interview. It is coverage of her research in which she is interviewed and quoted explaining the research in her own words at some times. Most of the media coverage on scientific work is like this in my experience. The author of the news article summarizes the work and describes its meaning, and there are places where the scientist is interviewed, sometimes along with other scientists, describing the work in simple terms. I would say that the articles in NPR, The NY Times, and several other media outlets fall into this format. It is significant coverage of the work that this person has created, not necessarily on the person themselves. I don't think these are primary sources as far as I understand because the author of the article is synthesizing the message. And I do think its significant coverage of the person's work. If the coverage is on the work that the person did, not on the person itself, I think it still counts as notability for the person who did the work. I'd love for someone else to weigh in. ProfessorCuprous (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and . I recently updated Dr. Peleg's page, and I would also advocate for removing the notability tag. My rationale is: (1) her citation percentile in physics and multidisciplinary sciences on Web of Science has been consistently high for a number of years, (2) her accumulation of prestigious early career awards (it's not clear to me from the notability criteria that early career awards are excluded, and she has a preponderance of them; given the number of Nobel Prize winners who first won Sloan Fellowships, I would argue that it is a prestigious award), (4) the WikiProject Women scientists is working to raise visibility of women scientists. Though she is rather young (but now a tenured Associate Professor), she is considered to be one of the leaders in the Physics of Living Systems. I have not been involved in one of these discussions on Wikipedia previously, though, and would welcome your thoughts! Moosling303 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Early career awards don't carry much weight in terms of notabilty. Being a women isn't a factor in notability either. Being Associate Professor isn't really a factor in notability either, would need to be a named chair or similar to meet WP:NPROF #5 for instance. Not all full professors are notable. Looking at citations, at first glance I'd still be thinking potentially WP:TOOSOON, though she does have 3 papers as a co-author with over 100 on Google Scholar. Independant coverage is probably the main factor to show notability at the moment I think, especially if they show she is actually "considered to be one of the leaders in the Physics of Living Systems" - I've not checked. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)