Talk:Rebecca Moore (scientist)

COI/GGTF article advice (moved from User talk:SlimVirgin)
Hi, Sarah. May I have some advice? And possibly even some help?

I'm in the process of writing an article about a female scientist, currently at User:GRuban/Rebecca Moore. However, I have a conflict of interest: I work for her. I'm a couple of levels below, and my project is not one she's very involved with, she sort of got it grafted on to her team in a company reorganization because it had to go somewhere, so I only see her a few times a year, and it won't be mentioned anywhere in her article, but still, it's formally a pretty clear conflict. The obvious advice, of course, is "don't write it, if she's really notable someone else will write it", but that's clearly not true. She's been notable for years now: environmentalist, international awards, the whole shebang, and yet no one has written it yet. Quite possibly the Systemic_bias thing, who knows. So it seems like I have to. WP:IAR dominates WP:COI; writing the article would improve the encyclopedia, and would be fun. But I really would like to hew as close as I can to WP:COI as I can, given the above.

So I need to ask some advice, ideally from someone who understands the WP:COI policy. According to your user page, you seem to have written it. I would also not mind some help from the Gender Gap Task Force. You seem to have started that. Also, collaboration with a noted and experienced Wikipedia admin, especially one that I've chatted with on other topics, would be nice. That's you too. So ... ? --GRuban (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I won't have time to work on it, but I had a quick read through, and it looks like a nice article. She sounds like a wonderful woman. One thing that jumped out is no mention of her mother, but details of father and siblings are there. I assume that's a sourcing issue. It would be good to add an approximate year of birth, and I assume you're going to add a photo. It's not clear from the writing whether she obtained the PhD. I may make a couple of little copy-editing tweaks, if that's okay. I can't see any reason for you not to publish it. SarahSV (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That was fast! Yes, I couldn't even find her mother's name in the sources. (I left the other brother's and sister's names out because they weren't notable; the father may not qualify for an individual article, but is certainly close.) It's not done yet, there is even more to write: she's worked with the Holocaust Museum, Jane Goodall, a few others. But the main question I was asking how to deal with the WP:COI. I wouldn't like the template:coi on the article itself (though I recognize the template:connected contributor may need to be on the talk page). Should I get someone to formally approve the article isn't slanted, when I'm done with it but before pushing it? How? --GRuban (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You've been open about it and the subject didn't ask you to do it, but if you want to be very careful, you can ask someone to check and post it for you, or you can go through Articles for creation.


 * One thing I would look out for are issues such as "wanted to accomplish more in life, as they had always urged her to." I would make sure that's in a secondary source. Ditto with "However she found the field did not suit her personally." These are flourishes that suggest a personal connection or personal sympathy. And I wouldn't say things like "Moore's most rewarding philanthropic project was .." I would attribute it, rather than place it in Wikipedia's voice: "Moore told a reporter that her most rewarding philanthropic project was ..." or "Moore described X as her most rewarding" etc. Look out for being very enthusiastic about her work, but it does sound very interesting, and the tone seems fine. SarahSV (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

, see if you can get to review and approve it for a move into mainspace. Her scientific credentials are impeccable. If she can't, she might know someone who can. Montanabw (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Individual issues

 * One thing that jumped out is no mention of her mother, but details of father and siblings are there. I assume that's a sourcing issue.
 * Yes, I can't even find her mother's name. I've read maybe twice as many articles on her as I use in references.


 * It would be good to add an approximate year of birth, and
 * Similarly, could not find in secondary sources (only through serious WP:OR). Unlike about certain professions, news articles about experienced computer scientists strangely enough don't tend to include: "the charming and lovely YZ year old Rebecca Moore is wearing a patterned frock by Muu-Muu while she dangles her toes in cool water..."


 * I assume you're going to add a photo.
 * Done.


 * It's not clear from the writing whether she obtained the PhD.
 * Done. --GRuban (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * issues such as "wanted to accomplish more in life, as they had always urged her to." I would make sure that's in a secondary source.
 * Ditto with "However she found the field did not suit her personally." These are flourishes that suggest a personal connection or personal sympathy.
 * Rephrased both those, using more direct quotes. This seems to be an important cathartic or turning point (origin story?!?), and I can't see how to avoid writing about her personal motivation. --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say things like "Moore's most rewarding philanthropic project was .." I would attribute it, rather than place it in Wikipedia's voice: "Moore told a reporter that her most rewarding philanthropic project was ..." or "Moore described X as her most rewarding" etc.
 * Rephrased. I want to say something about this not being just another GEO project, given the less technological nature of the Surui, and the existential threat that the project addressed for them, but can't quite figure out the best way to phrase it. --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions
Hi! I saw your ping and read through the article, and I have a couple of suggestions. :)


 * "It wasn't me," she says. "Instead of figuring out, How am I going to cure cancer... argue a case before the Supreme Court or invent the red ribbon? I thought, just do something small." -- this reads like a newspaper article and is kind of peacocky. Would suggest removing it.


 * "Possibly the most dramatic Google Earth Outreach project" -- this is editorializing


 * "Moore has two dogs, but no children; she says she, personally, wouldn't have been able to do her work and have them" -- this could be reworded, I suggest something like "Moore has publicly expressed her choice to not have children"

Let me know if I can be of more help or if you have any questions! Keilana (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. I did as you advised, I think, but, do need a bit more help, I'm afraid.
 * For the first one, it feels like I do need something to explain why she didn't complete her PhD. Sarah, just above, asked about that. Is there a way I can do that without peacocking?
 * For the second one - yes, you're quite right. However, is there any way I can lead the paragraph with something other than just "another"? The Surui were (a) a stone age tribe being taught to use computers, and (b) facing an existential threat; that seems noticeably different from the other projects. Is there any way I can express that?
 * For the third - do you really think "has publimovescly expressed" is better than "says"? I mean, if you really insist on it, I'll do it, but it seems clumsy to me, so I want to make sure.
 * Finally, and the most important reason I'm asking for help - with these changes, do you think I've managed to avoid expressing COI here? --GRuban (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just realized! My apologies. You're the the one with the articles about you. I'd actually read some of them, but didn't connect the dots. No wonder you lost track of this, naturally you're busy. OK, I'll reduce the questions to the last one, you don't have to answer the first three if you don't have the time. But I will ask: do you think it's ready, and will you vouch for it to be COI-free? If so, do you want to do the honors of pushing it live? (Not quite a single move; this one probably to Rebecca Moore (computer scientist), and moving the current Rebecca Moore to Rebecca Moore (musician), and making Rebecca Moore itself a disambiguation page; there's apparently an existing article at the most straightforward place.) If you would prefer, I can write something misogynist, if you are out, and want to keep fulfilling your legendary article creation quota... --GRuban (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience on this one - I am indeed stupid busy and it usually takes me awhile to get back to people on things. :) It looks much better, with far less editorializing. The first one is sorted, the second one I'd suggest something like "Moore began to work with the Surui people of Brazil, teaching them to use Google technology to advocate for their resources." and then launch into the rest of the paragraph as is. Otherwise it looks okay! I think it's pretty good in re COI and once that bit is rephrased I'm happy to make the necessary moves. (Please do ping me when you're ready, I might not see it otherwise.) Best, Keilana (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure - there's an NPR article that specifically says she was one of the first supporters of the tribe, I can cite that. Thank you! I think approval from an author of WP:COI and multiple featured articles and a Wikipedian of the Year who is on the Arbcom is about as good as anyone can reasonably hope for, COI-wise. --GRuban (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So. Um. I hate to be a bother, but are you happy, and if so, are you going to be able to do the moves? Because if not, I can understand and can ask someone else or do it myself or something. I mean, kittens are good too, of course, but given the choice... --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've been otherwise occupied but am happy to make the moves now. :) Thanks for your patience and hard work!! Keilana (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you, thank you! --GRuban (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)