Talk:Sarah Tuttle

pictures

The only pictures I can find of her and her work that are free to use are here Victuallers (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Astrophysicist Sarah Tuttle speaks on "Dark Energy. Or, Hunting the Heffalump" in Austin in 2014

Methinks you mean https://vimeo.com/89974317. I grabbed one, but since the video is so dark, the resulting image once lightened is pretty grainy, enough so that I'm waiting for comments before daring to put it on the page. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban:

Is this any better? :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe? You seem to have found almost exactly the same frame I did, but kept it dark, rather than lightening. I would be fine with either. That said, the AfD is by no means a sure thing. --GRuban (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the AfD has gotten a lot better since yesterday, and this will likely survive, so we can risk decorating it. Honestly, I think the lighter photo is better at showing what she looks like, even if the lightening makes it look more grainy. --GRuban (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That photo ought to encourage Tuttle or a friend to upload something to Commons for us lol --valereee (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: You know... you are actually right. This was actually the sixth image capture I made and was the one I liked most. I can't believe I didn't even notice it's the same picture!!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And there we go! She uploaded a photo! Thank you, Sarallelagram! I tweeted at her to give her the commons upload link! --valereee (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: Awesome! Can you get her to tweet that she owns the rights to the photo and releases it under a free license? Something like "I own the rights to the photo at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stuttle.jpg and release it under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"? Then we can link to that release. Because it's a professional quality photo, and we generally want to cross the ts and dot the is for those. --GRuban (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

GRuban, it doesn't look like a selfie to you? --valereee (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Hm, yeah, not from the laptop, the resolution is too high. But the arm placement, it's pretty selfyish...--valereee (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Honestly, no; it looks pretty good quality, with a shadowed background, and pretty obviously from the same "set" as her Twitter profile photo. Laptop selfies tend to be both messier due to the nature of where laptops tend to be placed, and distorted due to the nature of the camera. Though I guess it might be, I'm not a professional photo analyst or even photographer, my expertise is limited to seeing a fair number of amateur and professional photos on Wikimedia Commons. In any case, I do know that we do generally ask that article subjects who donate pictures specifically release them. She can also email OTRS to do that, but the backlog on that is months; especially since she's so responsive on Twitter, tweeting the release could be much faster. --GRuban (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I have got Sarah load a new and original picture. This is the only route I have ever got to work. OTRS is so slow that its a race to find out who loses interest first. I was intrigued by GRuban's suggestion that tweeting a release would do. Is there ant precendent of this being accepted (as it would be a timely solution in future.) Victuallers (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. A Twitter tweet is basically a web page, but it's one we're pretty sure she owns, and in general we accept claims that are verifiably by the article subject that they own an image. The point is that anyone could have registered as Sarallelagram (in fact User:Sarallelagram doesn't even claim to be Sarah Tuttle), while if she's posting something much to her twitter account, it's pretty clearly her. Examples of Twitter releases being accepted: File:2017 Charlottesville vehicle-ramming attack.webm; File:Afonso Dhlakama, 1993 in Maringue.jpg; File:Haw-oumuamua.oga; File:Snow in Europe 3.jpeg; File:Handover of petition to save Freedom of Panorama.jpg; File:Genbank100CD.jpg; File:SpatiallyOffsetRamanSpectroscopy-IlluminationGeometry.gif … --GRuban (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Primary" template

Wondering about the primary template that ​Slatersteven has chosen to add. What parts of the article are "improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source"? From what I can see, the primary sources that are used in the article conform to WP:PRIMARYCARE (which, after all, states that even a person's autobiography "can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person"). The mix between primary and other sources here seems to be fairly standard for similar biographies, so unless there is a specific reason not to, I would remove that template. Markus Pössel (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks a lot like merely being upset about the failed controversial AfD. {{notability}}, which would ordinarily be used to correctly describe the AfD outcome, doesn't apply because WP:NPROF is so much stricter than the GNG. I'm removing the tag. EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the template itself seems to be fairly explicit about when it should be applied, and I do not see those conditions being met here. Removing the tag seems indeed to be (have been) the correct course of action. Markus Pössel (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"1st authors"?

The paragraph near the end about gender discrepancy in astronomy paper citations is a bit confusing. I haven't read the article, but the <ref> goes to the abstract which only mentions papers led by a male or led by a female, not "1st authors". I could log in and read the article, but unless it is going to be cited rather than the abstract, I think that we should report what the source (abstract) says. Henry Hannon (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)