Talk:Laurence D. Marks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a COI

Adding two recent high profile papers is not a COI. I did not write the original version of this page. It has been present for many years. If you want I can ask one of the original authors to add the appropriate papers. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 June 2023

• What I think should be changed: The , replaced by a combination of

J. M. Cowley Family Tree

A. Howie Family Tree

L. D. Marks Family Tree

• Why it should be changed: These verify that L. D. Marks was a PhD student with Archie, and a postdoc with John.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Request edit on 14 October 2023

• What I think should be changed: status update, including two awards
• Why it should be changed: Fulbright Scholarships for senior faculty are very highly prized.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Included

As of September 2023, Emeritus Professor, Northwestern University

Fellow, Microscopy Society of America 2017

Fulbright Scholar 2024

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Addendum to ping StarryGrandma for possible WP:3O if needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer project, meaning edit requests such as this are expected to have this type of formatting done prior to the request being submitted for review. Regards,  Spintendo  18:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do the edit, you now have all the information you requested. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In case there is any ambiguity, the "Emeritus" goes at the end of Career, the others at the end of Honors and awards. Thanks in advance. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Brendan ❯❯❯ Talk 05:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed: see below, both status (now Emeritus) and a couple of awards. It might also be relevant to have a Laurence D Marks redirect.
• Why it should be changed: updated information

As of September 2023, Emeritus Professor

Fellow, Microscopy Society of America 2017

Fulbright Scholar 2024

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954  Declined None of the mentioned accolades are Wikilinked. If these items are notable, their WikiLinks should have been provided with the request. Regards,  Spintendo  13:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is very inappropriate. Please see Fulbright program and Microscopy Society of America if you want Wikilinks, and Northwestern University although the latter is overkill. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Better sources needed

I have tagged this article as needing better sources and as relying too much on primary sources. I am not challenging the notability of Laurence Marks (otherwise I would not have put the time into rescuing broken links). However, according to WP:BLPPRIVACY, it is never appropriate to state the birth date of a living person without a source. Also, many facts are sourced to a self-created vita and a user genrated E-Tree. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, the article should not be primarily based on these sources. I agree there is much content here that is not from those sources, notably his awards, but key facts such as his education and job details are from these primary sources. Although academics have a different threshold for notability, we still have to follow WP:BLPPRIVACY and have reliable sources. I have opted to flag these issues, rather than to delete the questionable content with hopes that this issue can be addressed. Rublamb (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma, I hope this explains my issues better than my edit note. I have already fixed some of this but there is still more to do Rublamb (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record:

• Changing the article name would destroy a number of other links. Also I am never known as Laurence Daniel Marks, that is inappropriate. Please do not rename me.
• Birth certificates are public records in the UK, I will find one for you, all you needed to do was ask, I am easy to find.
• If you read Trinity School of John Whitgift you will find that I am in fact mentioned. This is more sourcing than 99.9% of bios.
• I will see if my scholarship at Kings is anywhere, but I doubt that. I wonder if this is being a bit too picky.
• Ref [6] is not a "user-generated source". This is an international effort, it was already there when I found it. Please remove your comment, particularly as there is other evidence (e.g. my thesis) that I worked for Archie and later John.
• The CV is a public document published by Northwestern University, it is deliberately not my personal copy (it is slightly out of date). If you don't want to accept those then you will have to reject 75% of academics. Of course it cannot be the sole source, it is not.
• Last, I think User:Rublamb should recluse himself for a possible COI since he only looked at this page after I tagged his page William Cicero Allen with an WP:AfD, and raising a concern there about my flags being deleted within minutes of them appearing. I find this disturbing.

I have reviewed about 50 Academic WP:AfC and many more times those outside. At a Peacock level this page is understated. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I have no issue with you. The article you nominated for AfD is not mine; I saw it for the first time yesterday and tried to improve it that same day for WP NC. I did follow the link you provided to this article because I find it interesting to learn about other editors that I “meet”, especially if we appear to have common interests. After reading this article, I saw some minor issues. I fixed some and tagged others. Tagging an article as needing improvement is not nefarious and is pretty passive in terms of the options editors have. My posting to the talk page about these changes demonstrates my good intentions and willingness to discuss.

The bigger issue here is that rather than having a discussion or getting a third opinion, you reverted all of my work on an article about yourself and also made several edits. This is against WP:COI and appears to have been done without much thought since you reverted rescued dead links, a missing country name, and other changes that were not in any way controversial.

With regards to your comments:

• Adding a person’s full name to an article does not change the article’s name. WP:UCRN says to use the common name for the title and, then, include the full name in the article. For example, see Bill Clinton. Because I found your full name in the cited secondary articles (APS Fellow Archive), I added it to the article. If not for those sources, I agree that including the full name would be incorrect. Note that nicknames should not be included without a source.
• Public records such as birth records are not allowed as a source per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The date of birth for a living person would have to be published in a widely circulated secondary source or many lesser-known secondary sources before it can be included in Wikipedia. In this case, the DOB is not sourced, so my tag was correct.
• Your name being included in the Trinity School of John Whitgift Wikipedia article does not provide a source as stated in WP:NOTSOURCE.
• If your scholarship is not mentioned anywhere, then it should not be included in the article. That would fall under WP:NOR and would also imply a COI violation as only the subject or someone close to the subject would know that information.
• I believe you misunderstand the meaning behind a “user generated” source. As explained in WP:UGC, it generally applies to content that is collaboratively created without editorial review. A collaboratively created webpage like this is exactly what WP:UGC refers to.
• The vita was published on the university's website but was created with your help; thus, it is a primary source. In addition, content created by one's employer is not generally considered to be secondary. While we can use such sources for some details, this source is used for key content such as degrees and jobs. I suspect better sources are out there which is why I tagged this content.

Given the COI issue here, it would be best for you to revert your edits and let me and other editors see what we can find for sources. If you know of a print or web source that we should use, I will gladly take a look. As I stated above, there is not issue of notability, but rather a goal of getting the key content properly sourced. Rublamb (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note the exception in WP:COI:

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly.

I will always revert outrageous changes such as renaming me without my permission. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, Using a name stated in a source is not defamation, nor was it an error that need quick removal. Again, the best solution is for you to self-revert your edits to demostrate your understanding and committment to adhering to COI policies. Rublamb (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rublamb, this is an article about a professor, which I was in the process of reworking when called away. I was surprised to see your objection to the sources. I review articles about academics at Articles for Creation and did a partial rewrite of this article before it was accepted at AfC.

As WP:NPROF points out, Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. So we rely on primary sources for biographical facts. A curriculum vitae is a widely distributed document for an academic and verified by universities and grant reviewers and is the usual source for educational and career data. European CVs often include dates of birth. It is fine to use facts about a person when they have been self-published by a person. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. I appreciate that you had expanded the references and found the archive source for the dead link to the CV. There are things that shouldn't be there without published sources. But using academic's website and CV as sources is perfectly fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma, Thanks for responding. I work with articles for WP:UNI and WP:WPBIO but don't specialize in scholars, so your thoughts are appreciated. It looks like the exception for academics is for determining notability; meaning you can look at the body of published research (primary sources) rather than having to find a source that constitutes major coverage. Thus, WP:NPROF is applied to this article. (Consider that a novelist with just a list of books and awards would still have to have a secondary source providing sig coverage to meet notability). However, WP:NPROF does not mention the use of vita/resumes and also says, “Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Note that the link to WP:RELIABLE is part of WP:NPROF. Therefore, we still must consider the sources according to normal Wikipedia criteria.

Regarding the university’s website: I replaced a questionable source with the university website and did not flag any of the content sourced to it. I do not have an issue with university websites but have unsuccessfully argued that they are secondary and/or reliable sources in several AfDs; these rulings seem to be that these sources are not independent of the subject and a prone to be self-written. I do agree with your interpretation of WP:BLPSELFPUB, that some self-published content is ok, especially for academics. However, I am going to challenge both of us to find better/published sources for this and other articles. Maybe the university fact-checks every detail of a vita; maybe they don't. Certainly, when I worked at a university, we always added a professor's information as provided on the website. That is why the vita is not the best source if others are available. Much of this content appears to be replicated in published sources; so I stand by my suggestion to replace the vita. However, if you know of a prior WP discussion of using vita as a source, please share the link. I am willing to be proven wrong (and still need to research GA and FA articles on academics to see what is considered best practices).

With regards to DOB, even if it is self-published on a vita, WP:BLPPRIMARY would still limit its inclusion in an article about a living person who is not a celebrity. As writer/editors of articles, we love including every fact findable but WP:BLPPRIMARY does of really good job of explaining the issues surrounding this data. However, in this case, the DOB is unsourced. There really is no defense of this content being included. Same with the other flagged content that is unsourced (possibly a COI?) or that relies on user-generated content. However, as an inclusionist who understands that Wikipedia is a process, I want to help find sources rather than delete content. I did not intend to flag the article without helping. But I am also fine with reducing my hotices to either "more sources needed" (at the top) or the in-text tags where there are no sources, if that is reasonable compromise. I am also fine letting you handle this, if that is your preference. Of course, once we get through the COI issue? Rublamb (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

One comment for clarity about CV information. For academics in the sciences who submit federal grant proposals in the US, they are required to certify the accuracy of information supplied including CV information. Providing inaccurate information on this has consequences anywhere from a reprimand to being fired and even being prosecuted. Prosecutions have taken place. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, You have actually proved my point the vita are not always accurate or reliable. Also, the vita is question was not published by a foundation or the federal goverment, so we cannot assume that or any level of external review. BTW, I have received numerous federal grants and no one has ever contacted current or former employers to fact-check my credentials. Recieving grant funding is does not make a vita more reliable, but it does certainly build the case for notability. Rublamb (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You have misread what I stated. Academic fraud in a CV is a major issue. These are checked, Ldm1954 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: during employment universities routinely require proof of degrees etc, did they not do that for you? They routinely check publications, and these are all in official internal (and sometimes external) reports. The university vouches for the information in proposals, and if it is false both the faculty member and the university can (have) be sued.

For some reason you are trying to defend unreasonable positions, including now accusing both me and User:StarryGrandma of COI violations. And all of this started when I put an WP:AfD on an article you are invested in, and then I questioned why my criticism suddenly vanished. Before that there is no evidence that you knew of my existence, and as some of the comments have indicated, you were not so aware of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NPROF. An unusual coincidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma, Thanks for restoring the rescued link to the vita. I had also recoved dead links for sources 11 and 14. Rublamb (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma, I think I have now restored the all corrections I made to punctation, citations, and deadlinks that were lost in the edit reversal. Rublamb (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 2:

Please include a link to my birth, as this appears to have been questioned: Ldm1954 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 11 November 2023

• What I think should be changed: Add link to my birth
• Why it should be changed: A claim that this is needed
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

"Index entry". FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved 16 January 2023.

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  13:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

To User:Spintendo, please note that User:Rublamb decided to revert you addition. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I believe in hindsight that their revert was correct. We're not supposed to use links to primary source documents for things like birth dates. When I approved the request, I hadn't realized that was what this was. I thought it was just a listing of a birthdate in an official database of some sort. So my apologies to the COI editor, and my thanks to User:Rublamb for correcting this. Regards,  Spintendo  07:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 11 November 2023

• What I think should be changed: Remove [failed verification] on my Sloan grant.

• Why it should be changed: The edit by User:Theroadislong to add this is perplexing. It took me 5 minutes to check it and verify it. Perhaps he did not search in 1987?
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)Ldm1954 (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

If it takes 5 minutes to find then NO I am not going to, citations should lead directly to supporting content without having to do further searches, it is a primary source in any case so we need to find an independent source, if the primary one is the only one available then it is probably not even worth mentioning the Research Fellowship. Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Sloan grant is now sourced using The New York Times, but has been relocated to the career section. Rublamb (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Authority Control

Since the Authority Control looked pretty empty, I went ahead and added all the links I found to Wikidata. I don't think there are any more, but feel free to correct me. Nobody (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 11 November 2023

• What I think should be changed: After "he worked with Archibald Howie" add the reference below
• Why it should be changed: It has been questioned that this needs a source
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Please reuse Reference 6 which is Marks, Laurence (1980). The structure of small silver particles. University of Cambridge. after this with a {{Rp}} of "Preface" as it was not numbered. The same reference can also be used to source that I worked at the Cavendish Laboratory, although that might be over-citing.

N.B., you can also include using the same reference an {{Rp}}"Title page" for my connection to Kings College Cambridge, as it is stated there.

Ldm1954 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

References

 Declined As StarryGrandma said, per WP:BLPSELFPUB, we can use self published material for claims about the subject, but only if those claims do not involve the mentioning of third parties. Regards,  Spintendo  13:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

A PhD thesis is not self published, it is a refereed book. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's either {{cite thesis}} or {{cite book}} — it cannot be both. A less opaque claim statement would be that the subject worked with this person, what that work product was, and it should be referenced by someone else objectively reporting on that work.  Spintendo  14:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

As she has stated, StarryGrandma cleaned it up after the original WP:AfC (from someone else). She also made one or two other tweaks later. While I have checked these for accuracy, I did not change them. If my thesis should be cited using {{cite thesis}} can someone please change it. (Google Books calls these Books, which is probably wrong.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ẠẠ== Request edit on 11 November 2023 ==

• What I think should be changed: Include the following, citations are inlined -- some are in the original and have the standard "ref name=:3" or similar. Please edit this. If needed you can check User:Ldm1954/Sandbox. To be clear, others coined the term "Marks Decahedron", and until around 2010 I never used it -- someone persuaded me.

Scientific contributions

Marks Decahedron

Marks is known for his work on nanoparticles. As part of his PhD thesis he experimentally observed and explained a type of five-fold twinned nanoparticle. which in 1991 Charles L. Cleveland and Uzi Landman renamed as the "Marks' decahedron". These particles are the lowest energy shape for a range of energies at the nanoscale, and have become an established part of the description of thermodynamically stable shapes of nanoparticles.

Also as a PhD student with Archibald Howie and working with David J. Smith he became interested in using electron microscopes to image the atomic structure of nanoparticles and their surfaces. For this and other early work he received the Burton Medal from the Microscopy Society of America and later was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society. His interest in nanoparticles and surfaces continued. In recognition of this work he received the Warren Award of the American Crystallographic Association and the ICSOS Surface Structure Prize.

He has also worked in a number of other areas including direct methods with electrons, nanotribology, precession electron diffraction, density functional theory coding using the Wien2k program, and more recently corrosion, flexoelectricity and triboelectricity. As of November 2023 he has more than 400 referred papers with an h-factor of 77..

• Why it should be changed: Provide a little information while trying to avoid undue WP:Peacock.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

To Spintendo, sorry but your statement that the references do not contain page numbers is completely inappropriate. Almost everything in the suggested section is a journal article, and the citation is to the journal article in total. If you really want specific pages from my PhD thesis you can use with {{Rp}} Chpts 2-5 (which is more than 50% of my thesis. I think you are overstating. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Some of these sources are to the subject's own work and the ones that aren't don't have definitive page numbers assigned to them (instead, page ranges are given). It would be helpful if the COI editor provided the actual page numbers so that the reviewer need not read 80 pages of text in order to verify these claims. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

In all the citations (sources) the whole article is on the topic. As one of the examples, source [6] is all on (the first) detailed atomic imaging of nanoparticles in electron microscopes. You cannot extract one or two pages out, that is not how science citations work, sorry.

N.B., I refrained from WP:Peacock deliberately in what I say about doing this first, I will let others discuss this and add/omit. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I recognize your concern, and I think the same holds for many of the comments by User:Rublamb; if you do not have technical training in the area it is hard or impossible to judge, and reading 80 pages of high level science is not trivial for anyone (myself included). In science we try and get around this by peer review, with journal editors and program managers responsible for finding adequate experts. This normally works. It is an issue that probably deserves discussion elsewhere. All I can think currently is that perhaps StarryGrandma can either look or request input from others (act as a journal editor). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ldm1954, I improved the citation referencing along the lines you'd requested elsewhere. As far as including some material about your research: we'd need significant coverage in a secondary source for this. Perhaps there has been a festschrift, with a preface? Or an interview published in a journal, with an introduction? The preface or introduction would tend to be useable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Russ,

Thanks for the edits. As a quick reminder, I have not edited the majority of this, much of this was done by StarryGradma and others. Some comments.

•  Done Rublamb (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Linking to the Cambridge library for my thesis is a good idea. Maybe you want to link as well to the copy at http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/thesis/LDM_Thesis.pdf
•  Done Rublamb (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Please restore both the Burton Medal and the Fulbright award. The Burton award is to a single person each year, the Fulbright is to a small number of faculty in all fields (it is not the student award). Both are much more prestigious and selective than being elected an APS or MSA Fellow.
• I constructed the majority of the suggested sentences on my work so they connected to the text in the Awards, to give secondary source validation.
• The "Marks Decahedron/Decahedra" has four secondary sources. You can also do a google search for "Marks Decahedron" and "Marks Decahedra", the number of hits is quite large. I am not sure how to include those, there should be a way.
• The "other areas" of work connects to both my CV and Google Scholar.
• No festschrift. I can probably dig up a few news articles, although I am not certain on their importance. The only interview is https://news.wttw.com/2020/01/02/northwestern-scientists-study-shocking-mystery-static-electricity which probably goes as an external link.
• Please change the first line to "Laurence Marks". If you do a Google search on ""Laurence Daniel Marks" there are only 9 hits, the "Daniel" is not normal usage. Searching on "Laurence D. Marks" has significantly more hits. (Laurence Marks by itself brings up other people.)

Thanks. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note before heading out the door regarding the last point, the full name - Wiki usually includes full names when they can be acurately sourced as being correct, and less on if they are 'commonly used or what the person goes by'. Considering it is included in your CV, which lists the majority of your achievements and works, I don't see a reason to exclude it based on the fact that you don't go by it on a daily basis, nor should Google search result hit counts carry any weight since websites go inactive and get deindexed daily on Google.

Awshort (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

*  Done Added Mark's decahedron text and graphic to article Rublamb (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (November 2023)

subject appears to be incapable of NOT editing this page Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:COISELF, in particular:

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly.

Changing my name is a very serious error

Calling a faculty member "staff" is a serious error

Kindly apologise, and admit that you are overstating. As I clearly stated, I invoked the COI exception rule. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling a faculty member "staff" is CLEARLY NOT a serious error! This could have been easily dealt with by an edit request. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The COI tag that was applied seems inapplicable as I don't believe the subject has been a "major contributor" to the text of the article, nor are there any statements that appear non-neutral. Other discussion can continue as needed, but I don't believe this tag is appropriate, so I have removed it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone with a COI appears to have made edits in the past, adding content not available in published sources or the vita. But that does not appear to be an active situation. Rublamb (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Folks, please relax and focus on the substantive points raised by Ldm1954. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the correct name?

The article says Marks received a Sloan Fellowsip, with a link to a Wikipedia article called Sloan Research Fellowship. The university website for Marks calls it the Sloan Foundation Fellowship as does the linked vita. The Sloan Foundation website refers to Sloan Resarch Fellowships. Is this a case of the award's name has changed since 1987? Which name should be used in the artice? Clearly, Sloan Fellowship is not correct as it matches none of the sources. Rublamb (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, this is a case where the full name may be different from certain commonly-used names. Sloan Research Fellowship is fine. I'd argue for trimming it from the awards section: it is an early career award. Although I believe it is one of the most prestigious, and might be worth mentioning in the career section, I think that the honors and awards section should be for career pinnacle awards. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The Sloan is the least prestigious of the awards. I deliberately did not ask for it to be added back, I did for two which are prestigious (Burton & Fulbright). Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I already added Fulbright into text and am currently working on the Burton, looking for a new source as the old was was deadlinked. Sloan was added to text as discussed above. Rublamb (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rublamb (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) For the Burton please use https://microscopy.org/msa-society-awards-recipients#burton and/or https://academic.oup.com/mam/article/20/S2/30/6932146 and/or https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/microscopy-and-microanalysis/article/microscopy-society-of-america/7EC8A89E121263383A94A32F39F4AFAD

 Done Your were right--that is a good one! Rublamb (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Of particular use will be https://www.amercrystalassn.org/assets/RefleXions/SUMMER2015RS.pdf

Perhaps (if you can find it) the original https://books.google.com/books?id=JagbAQAAIAAJ

---

Please remove the Sloan. That is a grant, it is not really anything more so should not be in career -- it does not provide any salary, teaching release etc. When I do a WP:NACADEMIC I do not consider it prestigious.

The full name is Fulbright Scholar award, it is not a "Fellowship" Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A little clarification from an expert on this particular topic.

A true Fellowship provides salary and perhaps a bit more.

A true Honor or Award is hard to very hard to get, and considered prestigious at higher academic levels

A true Grant is funds from which, perhaps, in the US summer salary might be paid. It is for research, with expenditures on legally allowed items which is audited by the university or other host institution.

The Sloan is a grant, the name is not representative. It provides $75K unrestricted.

The Burton Medal is a medal (picture available on request) to one person each year. It is an award.

The Fulbright Scholar Award is an award. For normal faculty their salary will be paid by their primary institution, they would get a Sabbatical. For emeriti their salary comes from savings. There is a peanuts contribution towards expenses.

If I was trying to put in Peacock then it is very appropriate for you to resist. However, since I know all the details, for instance the full conditions of all of these including what they do or do not do for $$$, please listen to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The Sloan is a prestigious early-career grant. If we expanded the career section a fair bit, then it could go in, but it may be WP:UNDUE as it is. I don't have a strong opinion on the Burton medal. The under-40 years of age requirement suggests that it is a mid-career award. A few similar awards are very prestigious (like the Fields medal); I don't see any evidence that the Burton medal is of this type, but I could be missing something. I am of the strong opinion that the Fulbright doesn't belong in an awards section -- this is basically a grant to support work abroad. It could be supported in a career section (as it currently is found), where the time and project abroad is worth mentioning. Comment in passing that the Awards section might be better formatted as a paragraph. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe. I restored Burton at the request of Ldm1954. My assumption of its worthiness is that the presenting organization has a Wikipedia article; the next best thing to the award having a stand-alone article given how many awards lack both. But if you feel strongly about removing it, that is fine with me. I worked as a mineralogist, but never on the geophysics side, so am not an expert by any means. I do think Sloan and Fulbright are significant and restored them to the career section as you suggested above. Any issues with UNDUE should be temporary as I plan on expanding the career section and am in the process of lining up sources. Once a context is provided by discussing the scholarly outcomes of these grants as part of his greater career, it will flow better and make sense in the section. (Ldm1954 has made text suggestions above for the career section but that is going to take some time to review and consider. Maybe someone else is up to tackling that?) On the other hand, this article is in better shape now and could just stay as is for a while; if you are fine with possible UNDUE in the career section. I usually take an adopted article as far as I can (aiming for B or GA), but there are reasons to consider this as a good stopping point. Rublamb (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That may well be moot! Articles subject says on their talk page "as the current editors are refusing to listen to me and introducing yet more incorrect statements. They know my life better than I do. I will wait for a week or so, and if the page still contains significant misinformation I will consider putting in a WP:AfD". Theroadislong (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Rulamb, my take on awards and honors sections in academic bios is that per WP:NOTDB they should be short and include only career highs. Certainly things that are a possible contribution towards WP:NPROF C3, like being a fellow in a learned society. A little broader than that, not too much. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the Burton is of this level; although I am slightly inclined to think it is not, I think it's fine. The Fulbright and Sloan I think are not near this level, although their effect on his career might reasonably go into the career section. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)