Talk:Valencia Koomson

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Valencia Koomson Headshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Influences

(Copied from User talk:Mpsheriff) The quote from Valencia Koomson is relevant, without influence from those sources she may have never traveled down the research path she did. The only thing I changed from the first post and the second was the word transformative. Does that really change the tone of the statement? I don't think so. Also, there is nothing wrong with using an interview as a source in Wikipedia. According to the article you sent me about using interviews in Wikipedia. Primary sources are allowed if they are uncontroversial and support claims about themselves. Which this quote absolutely is. Mpsheriff (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to a talk page. Yes, the WP:INTERVIEWS essay discusses the use of interviews in an article at some length, and there are some appropriate uses. My concern is that you're using a somewhat junky source to support a trivia statement about the subject. An encyclopedia article has a different aim from an interview, and what should go into the two are different. (The "transformative" is an example of WP:PEACOCK type language, which I don't like for other reasons.) I don't think the factoid belongs in the article. What you're adding looks a lot like the kind of thing that sometimes was put in the deprecated "Influences" parameter to the infobox person template -- there is a reason that parameter was deprecated. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So, MIT is ''junky'? They published the interview. I don't see how you are coming to the conclusion that transformative is peacocking. Its simply stating how the technology has the ability to transform people's lives. It's not promoting the subject of the article. I feel like your edits are arbitrary. Mpsheriff (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

An interview is not a great source, even if published in an otherwise reliable source. An MIT newsletter is not nothing, but it is something that the university is publishing partly to promote itself. But I'll ping also Kj cheetham for another opinion, who has at least seen the article (and made a few small edits), who has a lot of experience with academic biographies, and who might be somewhat more sympathetic to your case. Kj cheetham, we're discussing Special:Diff/1182503645 and Special:Diff/1182636780. Mpsheriff is a student editor, as you can see from their user page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I originally tagged this article for notability back in 2021, and I'm still a bit on the fence with that. Don't see how it meets WP:NPROF, but there's some chance it meets WP:GNG though I've not looked into that this year.

But for this specific issue, I wouldn't have said MIT News was junky, though it's clearly heavily primary sourcing and is seemingly an academic interviewing an academic in an academic publication. Not to mention Valencia Koomson was an undergrad at MIT, so not exactly independant. But, that source does support the text of that specific edit, except for the word "transformative". Personally I'd remove at least that word, as the edit already says "enhancing people's lives", so there is no need to additionally say "transformative" as it is a bit peacocky unless it's explicitly saying that's what someone independently said, which isn't the case here. The first part of that edit probably belongs in the "Career" section along with the other sentence about her undergrad.

Overall, the edit doesn't add a great deal to the article. Anantha Chandrakasan and Tayo Akinwande appear to be notable enough to have their own articles at least, but I'm not sure what the middle sentence adds beyond trivia. The Research section does sound slightly (not overly) promotional, with terms like "played a pivotal role" and "played a crucial role" already. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the tag! Detagged by an SPA earlier this year. I started to nominate for deletion now, but looking at the sources in the article, the Forbes source in the article (not Forbes contributor) does look like WP:SIGCOV of her research on pulse oximetry, and the NPR source isn't bad either. There's a case for WP:BLP1E and a redirect/merge to pulse oximetry, but I don't think I want to make that case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Russ Woodroofe: Multiple concerns about this course raised at WT:LAW, where Wiki Ed staff says the course will be confined to sandbox going forward. Although the original copy-paste did not seem to have come from a course student. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)