Talk:Laurence D. Marks

Please correct

•  Done Rublamb (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC) The Burton Medal is not part of my career, it is an award. Please change.
•  Done and thanks for the quick response to my request for an image. Rublamb (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC) For an image please use

  

  Emeritus Professor Laurence D. Marks

• Please remove the Sloan from my career. As I said above, it is a grant award, nothing more. It probably should not be included, at best it going into award.
•  Done See comments below. Rublamb (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Please also listen to the expert and correct the Fulbright Scholar Grant to awards.
•  Done Not important, especially if not correct. Rublamb (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC) :===CRITICAL=== Remove the statement "and oversaw the mircroscope facility". That is very incorrect, and could lead to all sorts of political problems. Please provide me with a copy of the relevant pages of the "Midwest Engineer" article and I will tell you whether any of it is useful, as I can only see the first 5 lines. (I have a hunch, but cannot verify at the moment.) Ldm1954 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Both Fulbright and the university call it the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program (I have corrected the title to include U.S. and Program). Neither source calls it an award, but the university calls it a fellowship. The U.S. Department of State says the Fulbright Program awards grants and lists the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program as one. The Wikipedia article, Fulbright Program, also calls these grants, not awards. Nowhere official that I have found calls this an award. We have to follow the sources, especially with items that contribute to notability. My solution is to use the full name of the program you received and not refer to it as an award, fellowship or grant.

With regards to adding, removing, or moving adequately sourced content, please remember it is the job of other editors to make those calls, not the subject of the article. You have requested many changes in the past 24 hours, and several people are trying to accommodate those, if appropriate. Please help these volunteer editors by only posting a request one time and by discussing that request in the same thread. Some of your requests are going to take time to review and manage. Please have patience. Nothing is critical here as everything in question has appropriate sources.Rublamb (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

And another error, the Marks Decahedron has nothing to do with source [11]. I give up. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Please reread this source. You will find this paragraph: "Marks, a professor of materials science and engineering in the McCormick School of Engineering, will spend six months in Australia studying the mystery of static electricity. His research focuses on nanoparticles, electron microscopy, diffraction, and crystallography. Marks’ most highly cited work is the discovery of a type of nanoparticle which has become known as the Marks Decahedron." Rublamb (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked me to, I will respond. You are citing one line in a 2023 news release from Northwestern University on a different topic, whereas I have provided 4 independent and well-cited sources from the 1991 paper that first coined the term to one in 2023. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, Some of the articles that you mentioned above are behind a paywall and do not discuss you in their abstracts. The one I can see doesn't say that you discovered this specifically, which is what we need a source to say in this instance. I believe this is why another editor requested that you provide the specific pages that would be useful; we are not looking for proof that the Marks decahedron exists or that someone wrote about it, but need sources crediting you as its discoverer. In the meantime, I already added another source for this information and a second sentence indicating its impact Your suggested sources may fit there. Rublamb (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Rublamb,

Again, since you specifically asked, I will respond. If you look at the original 1991 Cleveland and Landman paper you will find it cites the original 1983 papers, and has my name in the Abstract, see https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/94/11/7376/96436/The-energetics-and-structure-of-nickel-clusters -- look at the references. You can often do a Google search on the title of a paper and find free versions such as https://studylib.net/doc/18873003/the-energetics-and-structure-of-nickel-clusters--size-dep...

A key problem with what you have is that you are using two unrefereed announcements on different topics from 2019 and 2023 to cite work performed in 1983-1984, almost 40 years earlier. I am glad to see that you removed the fluff quote from a paper that was there before, too many scientist now peacock claims of importance in their introductions.

If it is a question of any of my papers or theses from me or my students you can look at http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/Research/Articles/.

If you need to understand details, I suggest that you ask for help at WP:Physics. In general quoting single sentences from specific articles is bad form in science. We worry a lot about rigor. I think you are going in the wrong directions, trusting weak information. For instance there is the vanished Astor lecture, wrong information about my thesis work, inappropriate highlights of a short visit to China (which should not be included), inappropriate description of topics I have worked on, and perhaps more.

Please get help from specialists who can look behind paywalls and have technical expertise in the area. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, Sources do not need citations to be used in Wikipedia. Please see WP:NEXIS. Another editor has already explained the issues with the sources you provided. I did not remove content from the awards and honors section; I updated deadlinks and restored content removed by others. Five editors have worked on this article in the past couple of days, including several who are more than qualified to evaluate this article. Rublamb (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ldm1954, I can see behind certain journal paywalls, and know all the tricks to find articles in my own field. We should generally not use WP:PRIMARY sources to build a description of your research, however. If there are reliable survey articles, or if your work has been meaningfully covered in textbooks, or if there are festschrift prefaces, or other summaries, then we could do something with it. Is there any secondary source overview of this type?? I agree that we'd be better off discussing your research only on the level of main topics (which we could source to your CV and/or webpage) than risking getting things wrong by interpreting primary literature. On another topic: I removed the Astor lectureship -- invited talks are a dime a dozen, and while this is a fancy one, I don't think it is such a career high that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. As you know, a Wikipedia article isn't a CV! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)