User talk:Ldm1954

Thank you for the care you took over Eleanora Robbins

Thank you. Genuinely, and more than I can easily say.

You declined Draft:Eleanora Robbins and you were entitled simply to tick a box and move on. Instead you tested her against three separate criteria, you wrote that you would really like to find a way to approve the page, and a minute later you came back to refine your own sentence about how female leaders go unnoticed. I read all of that. She is my mother, I have been at this for three years, and yours is the most careful reading anything of hers has ever had on Wikipedia. I am very grateful to you for it.

There is one thing I should have made clearer in the draft, because it bears directly on your finding under WP:NPROF#C1, and I do not think any reviewer could have known it from the page as submitted.

Her citation record is split in two by a change of surname, and every database undercounts her accordingly. Her early work is published as E. R. Iberall and her later work as E. I. Robbins. The databases treat these as two different scientists. Semantic Scholar holds two separate author profiles for one woman; whichever one a reviewer opens shows roughly half a career. Her earliest work is there under the first name — Herz, Valentine & Iberall (1970) on the Roseland titanium district — and her later work under the second, and nothing joins them. Her book chapters are not indexed at all, including the 1987 chapter on iron-coated microstructures in the Isua iron formation in Precambrian Iron-Formations (Theophrastus).

I would gently observe that this is the same problem you described in your own decline, arriving in the data. A woman who changed her name in the middle of her career has her citation record cut in half by every bibliometric database we use to measure her, and her male contemporaries do not. The h-index you were shown is not an assessment of her work. It is an assessment of the larger of her two halves.

Please would you look at her again with that in mind.

With profound thanks for your time and your evident good faith, Ngalubutui (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of Draft:Robert Fairman (biochemist)

Hi Professor @Ldm1954

I would appreciate your help in reviewing Draft:Robert Fairman (biochemist), if you have time. I have revised the draft to address the previous concerns regarding sourcing, notability, and article tone, and have tried to ensure that the biographical and research claims are supported by reliable sources. A major concern about the article was that it's references were AI bloat so I tried my best to fix that.

If you are able to take a look at the draft and provide feedback or review it for Articles for Creation, I would be very grateful. Thank you for your time and assistance. Senematic (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Senematic, first Gurkubondinn and IrisChronomia should look at your draft to see if they think the LLM and related issues have been adequately addressed. In a quick look I see no evidence that anything has changed that would make him notable via WP:NPROF. Many (too many) of his better cited publications are team efforts, plus his cites/year show a systematic decrease which is not good. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Most clearly the Diff/1377233489 edit was copied from an LLM. @Senematic, why did you say major concern about the article was that it's references were AI bloat in such a passive voice about a draft that you submitted, isn't this something that you would know for certain? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As a long time talk page stalker of yours, I've seen the comment and has already went and checked. I almost wanted to send something here an hour ago, mostly as a more angry version of this reply of yours.

Senematic, I am asking you again to stop editing before you respond to questions about use of previous accounts and conflicts of interests. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Also good point, Senematic has never used their own talk page. Evidently they know that talk pages exist though, because they've posted here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of Dominique Delande

Good evening,

could you be more specific. Why you have rejected the entry? What would you think could improve the entry? I am not an experienced Wiki writer, so any comment is welcome. Wikidajlo57 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

As already stated, everything must have an inline source:

1. #Education and academic career

Ldm1954 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

1. The whole Education and academic career section
2. The bullets in his research
3. The collaboration
4. Every one of his awards

In addition phrases like "internationally recognized pioneer" are boasting (WP: PEACOCK) and not allowed.

The draft was not rejected, it was declined. You need to correct it and then resubmit for a third review. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will try. Should I remove the rewards that I cannot find a source (except official CV of the deseased)? IAs I understand the bullets have to be removed and replaced just by sentences.. As far as academic career and a source - does not the farewell letter for the lab satisfy that? Wikidajlo57 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Up your street?

Hi, Ldm, how are you? I don't believe that this is anywhere near your field of expertise, but wondered if you might nevertheless find the time to clean it up for mainspace? I declined a G13 there as Scopus says his h-index is 171, not the sort of number I'm used to seeing. But perhaps you have other fish to fry? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

From what I can see the draftification by @Boynamedsue was wrong. The argument made that it has no sources and those sources must be independent of the subject appears to be unjustified, particularly as independence is not required for a pass of WP:NPROF. It seems that the novice editor Pecxillas got discouraged and stopped participating after this.

The page should be checked for LLM, although I saw no obvious signs; maybe @Gurkubondinn would check. If there is no LLM I suggest moving it to main (with tag cleanup) as it would pass AfD with 99.99% certainty. (I am currently at a conference with flakey internet so won't do it now.) Ldm1954 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Jetlagged, I did not read your email right. I will move if to main later this week or next if there is no LLM. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my drafitification was completely wrong there. It was in the first weeks I had NPP status. There is sigcov and it also passes WP:ANYBIO due to the Italian order of merit. I have no idea why I did that. It should be in mainspace. Is there any way to contact the original author to apologise?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The OA might have seen this thread as I pinged them, not sure otherwise unless you email them. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I would, but I don't use a verified email on here.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I created a second account with an email I have access to in order to apologise, unfortunately Pecxillas hasn't got a verified email either. I've put an apology on their talkpage. I feel awful about this.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had time to look at this yet. I'll try to get to it, but you can also ask for help on AIN if I don't get to it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)