Talk:Katherine Johnson/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

her full name is Katherine Goble Johnson, not Katherine Tobias Johnson. Noitall123 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Her race

For reasons outlined in my edit comment and modification of an internal comment, I have removed "African-American" from the lede. I agree with a prior editor that MOS:BIOGRAPHY#Context permits mention of her race, but it does not require it. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Peter Chastain, I reverted your edit. Per Talk:Katherine Johnson/Archive 1#Nationality in the lead: Use of "African American", that Johnson is African American is a significant aspect of her WP:Notability. The sources are clear about that. No one stated that her being African American is "the most important thing about her." And since being African American is relevant to (specifically a significant aspect of) her WP:Notability, it is perfectly fine to mention in the lead that she is African American...per MOS:BIOGRAPHY#Context. Your "readers can see she is black by looking at her photo" argument is weak, and is contradicted by previous discussion of her "race" and IPs like this one steadily trying to remove the fact that she is African American from the lead. That IP added "mixed." Well, mixed with what? And it appears that the IP, like many people ignorant to the topic of African Americans, do not know that African Americans are a deeply mixed group. We have had to combat people removing "African American" from the lead based on their views of what Katherine Johnson is and the fact that they don't want a black woman to have credit for being as smart as Johnson is and for accomplishing what she did for science. To those people, it is her "white side" that made her so smart. Why are you so adamant on removing "African American" from the lead? And as for categorizing based on looks, you might be interested in this recent discussion that was had at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. With regard to the previous "African American in the lead" discussion, pinging Dicklyon, Parkwells and DonFB for their thoughts on this latest dispute. After your removal, DonFB added the African American aspect in another way. That got lost with my revert. Also pinging Alanscottwalker, who has recently been involved in African American categorization discussions with me and might have some thoughts on this Katherine Johnson topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Peter K Burian as well. Overlooked pinging him. He was also in the previous "African American in the lead" discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Peter Chastain: Please explain how you can verify someone's "race" by a photo. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
(I would prefer were this talk-page section titled "ethnicity"). But regardless, yes, African American should be in the lead for reasons already stated by Flyer. I neither insist upon, nor oppose it being in the first sentence, but it should be in the lead section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this: it should be in the lead section, because her ethnicity is a major aspect of her cultural importance, as stated by virtually every reliable source. I'm ok with the current status of simply mentioning her ethnicity, but I would actually favor stronger emphasis on the fact in the lede, in the manner of my earlier edit, which pointed out that she is regarded as a "trailblazer"; "breaking down barriers" is another phrase that's been applied to her in the sources. DonFB (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with keeping her ethnicity in the Lead: she was doubly notable as an African-American mathematician, and as a woman mathematician, when neither African Americans nor women were well-represented in this field. And yes, this section of the TAlk page should be entitled Ethnicity. Parkwells (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you are right Don, so now I would prefer that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind that inclusion either. I feel that we should retain "African American" in the lead sentence, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn and FlightTime: Before I eliminated the ethnic information from the lead, I looked on the talk page for prior discussions of the issue, but I neglected to look in the archived pages. Had I seen the discussion there, I would not have made my changes. FlightTime raises a valid point about the futility of determining race from a photo. All that said, the fact that the very first thing a reader sees (after her name and birth date) is the fact that she is African-American seems somewhat dismissive of her achievements. I agree that her race is an important part of her story but wish we could put it a bit farther down in the lead. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 03:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to this idea. If her ethnicity is to be mentioned lower in the lede, however, it would be necessary to say so with proper context. For example: "As an African-American she is considered a trailblazer in her field." It would be a bit odd simply to say: "She is African-American." DonFB (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Peter Chastain, I don't see the "is an African-American mathematician whose calculations of orbital mechanics as a NASA employee were critical to the success of the first and subsequent U.S. manned spaceflights" text as dismissive of her achievements, not even somewhat. That first sentence tells us right there what her achievements are before going into further detail. There is no problem at all with stating "is an African-American" in the lead sentence. I see no need to move it down in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We can mention race where appropriate, even in the lead, but the first sentence of the the lead is not appropriate. Beginning the article with "African American mathematician", immediately leads to needless othering (treating unqualified "American" as the norm, with African American as something different). Just as we don't begin Dr. Dre with an "African American singer", nor Eminiem a "white American rapper", nor Neil deGrasse Tyson an "African-American astronomer." Would we call Einstein a White Jewish physicist in the first sentence, or Elton John "a gay male English singer"? Even for people whose racial/ethnic background is a notable part of their biography, careless usage leads to needless/undue emphasis. A more elegant, refined way to note race/gender/anything, where appropriate would be "Johnson is an American mathematician.... She was one of the first African Americans to ..." In this way her biographical intro is treated equally to all other American mathematicians, while her accomplishments in regard to race are recognized as well. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence is appropriate, per what I and others argued above. MOS:BIOGRAPHY#Context is clear. Being African American is not inherent to Dr. Dre's notability. Well, not in the way that it is inherent to Johnson's notability. It's well known that hip hop culture prominently includes African Americans. Johnson being African American in relation to the topics mentioned in her Wikipedia article is very due for the reasons the article addresses. I don't agree with the "othering" argument in this case. That stated, MOS:BIOGRAPHY#Context doesn't focus on the first sentence, but rather on the opening paragraph. And I'm not completely opposed to not having the African American aspect in the first sentence and instead having it in the second sentence or otherwise early on in the first paragraph (with context, such as "she was one of the first African Americans to [...]."). DonFB suggested something like that, and Alanscottwalker agreed with going that route, but it doesn't seem that DonFB was suggesting removing the African American aspect from the lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I could/would support saying just "American" in the first sentence and African American in the second or third, Eg, 'One of the few African American . . .' or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer 22 Reborn:: see the intro to Mae Jemison for a GOOD example of what I mean. We can indicate both a person's race and primary notability in the first couple sentences, without the linguistic ghettoization of "African American" from all other members of their occupation. "African American mathematics" is not an occupation. I base my suggestions more on principles of good, fair, and inclusive writing, less so on the many-layered by-laws of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but the former need not preclude the latter. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I know what you are saying; I just don't agree with you on stating that "African-American" in the lead sentence is problematic in the case of this article, given just how important Johnson being African American is to her notability. And I don't agree with your ghettoization point. But I also stated, "I'm not completely opposed to not having the African American aspect in the first sentence and instead having it in the second sentence or otherwise early on in the first paragraph (with context, such as 'she was one of the first African Americans to [...]."). And we see Alanscottwalker's latest statement above. Now it's just a matter of coming up with wording, pinging all of the previous editors involved in this discussion, and seeing if they agree to whatever wording is proposed. Or even if they agree to removing "African-American" from the first sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm ok with not saying African-American in very first sentence. Here are a couple of text excerpts from NASA web pages; a sub-excerpt might provide a short quotation around which to build the second sentence of the lead:
"Visitors to NASA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. will forevermore be reminded of the African-American women who were essential to the success of early spaceflight." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/sign-of-progress-street-renaming-puts-nasa-headquarters-on-hidden-figures-way
"Due to Johnson’s historical role as one of the first African-American women to work as a NASA scientist, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama" at: https://www.nasa.gov/modernfigures/videos (look for: "Hidden Figures to Modern Figures: Students See SLS [Rocket at Michoud]" --may need to right- or left-arrow several times to reach item with this text).
Text about the award from Obama, if used for this purpose, would require a bit more editing, so as not to repeat the fact at the bottom of lead, where it's now mentioned. DonFB (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: DonFB changed it to this. I spaced it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing section on media

My point about moving the TV episode from first position in a paragraph that includes discussion of the film Hidden Figures and the book it was based on, was that the TV episode referring to Johnson was less important than either the book or the film. It seems silly to lead the media section with a reference to that episode. Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Birthdate

Someone is messing with her birthdate, can someone fix? I can try, I guess. BetseyTrotwood (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

BetseyTrotwood, it was this IP that did it. Thanks for fixing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. BetseyTrotwood (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Current Residence

Ms. Johnson no longer lives in Hampton, VA, but is now in an assisted living facility in Newport News, VA. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.116.152 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal life changes

I could not find evidence that she sang in the choir for 50 years, so I removed the mention of the choir entirely. I did provide a reference showing she was a member of Carver Memorial Presbyterian Church in Newport News, Virginia for 50 years and added that. The reference is not exactly an independent source, so if a better reference can be found, use it instead. She was in the choir in 1959[2] and 1975[3], so it's very possible she sang there for 50 years. I also replaced the wikilink with a link to Presbyterian Church (USA) after verifying the church's affiliation.[4] Given that this is a "personal life" section and the ease of verifying the information, I didn't want to overburden the section with references. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Katherine Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


Opening review. I’ve read it a few times today and shouldn’t have many comments. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I’ll also say a great thanks to the editors who have done some spring cleaning since this has been on the main page, the smaller tweaks usually brought up at GAR (apostrophes, eg) have been resolved already. Kingsif (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to second that! I somewhat WP:BOLDLY nominated this without having made any substantial contributions to this article previously. Other editors have done a great job here! TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead is satisfactory. Perhaps the last couple lines (In 2015...) could be split to another paragraph, but not needed.
 Done TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of Career need inline citations (presumably [15] covers both)
 Done TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The term computer, wikilinked to the job meaning, doesn’t need quotation marks
 Done TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Alpha Kappa Alpha needs a ref
 Done TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Johnson, who had six grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren, lived in Hampton, Virginia is cited to the Daily Mail, a deprecated source, so needs a better source (it seems to be a review, but the noted lack of accuracy needed in the paper doesn’t fly for this fact)
 Done TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Johnson has been portrayed in the media seems superfluous, it reads as well if not better without it.
 Done TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a good weight of content between the sections
  • Award refs seem good
  • No issues with the see also list
  • on hold Kingsif (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this article. I am glad this impressive individual has an in depth Wikipedia article. TJMSmith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Amazing! This passes, with no prejudice against continuing to work on it further! Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree with this review. Addressed at Talk:Katherine Johnson#Elevation of this article to GA status. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Elevation of this article to GA status

TJMSmith and Kingsif, I'm concerned about the speed at which this was nominated and elevated to GA status. Never, during my long tenure with this site, have I seen an article nominated and elevated to GA status so fast. And I don't appreciate TJMSmith showing up out of the blue and nominating it. Like Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions states, "it is highly preferable that [the nominator has] contributed significantly to the article and [is] familiar with the subject." At Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Nominating, it states, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." None of the regular editors were consulted. I feel that this GA process was rushed/lacked due diligence.

BlueMoonset, since we have discussed uninvolved editors coming along and nominating an article for GA or FA, can I get your thoughts on this? And, SandyGeorgia, as someone who has significant experience with FA reviews, can I get your opinion on this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this should not be a Good Article, but few are; that's why I don't participate in the GA process. And getting it undone is no fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not the first time I've seen evidence of rushed work coming out of Women in Red, with disregard for the criteria. Slow down people, we don't have to finish the Encyclopedia in one day, and Katherine Johnson deserves much better than this rushed effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Getting it undone. I'm not even sure I want to pursue getting it undone. One more ping: SNUGGUMS has a lot of experience with GAs. SNUGGUMS, any thoughts or advice on this? Do we just let the GA status remain and further tweak the article? Is it GA status to you? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Not GA material now mainly because it isn't stable. This article unsurprisingly has gone through lots of edits lately due to the subject's recent death. It would've been better to wait until activity settled down more. Definitely promoted too soon. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For me it looks like the kind of article that could be made GA but is not quite there yet. At first glance, the award section does not comply with WP:USEPROSE (WP:GACR 1b, "list incorporation") and three of the references are likely unreliable (35 Bridenstine twitter, 43 ribbon cutting youtube, and 71 william and mary youtube). Also I think the career section is too quote-heavy, relying on copied phrases rather than rephrasing things in our own words where possible. Some of the information in the infobox, like spouse and number of children, is not central to the significance of the article and would be better omitted from such a prominent position (WP:GACR #3b). I didn't check for copying or close paraphrasing, or image licensing, but all of these things seem like stuff we can fix up post-approval rather than requiring un-approval and re-approval. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't intend to step on anyone's toes here. I thought this was a solid candidate for a GAN based on a culmination of edits from a large number of contributors. I did do a (perhaps hasty) review of the edit history to see if there were any significant contributors but I didn't catch any specific user I thought to contact. Looking again now, I do see that Flyer22 Frozen has a long history of edits on the page. I did not anticipate the review being picked up so quickly. I nominated this for a copy edit at the WP:GUILD, thinking that would happen before the GAN review occurred. TJMSmith (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Frozen: Replying to your comment of 23:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC) above, before the out-dent:
Recommendations:
  • Make this a "GA after the fact" - keep working on it, so that by this time next month it will pass any GA-review with flying colors. When it is "really ready" re-do the GA checklist as if it were a GA nomination or a GA review, without the formalities.
  • If the general problem of "rushed" reviews needs to be discussed, Wikipedia talk:Good articles is a better place to do it.
  • If this is not "GA-review-proof" or still being actively improved by the end of March, then send it to GA review for possible demotion.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with these recommendations. Oh, and to add to my post-GA evaluation above: Is the article stable? Clearly not, it has been going through a lot of rework by multiple editors based on her very recent death and obituaries. It should stabilize soon, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, davidwr, the place to discuss this would be at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, since this is a review process matter. TJMSmith, in future, whether you can find a "significant contributor" or not, you still need to consult on the article's talk page prior to nominating if you aren't a significant contributor yourself—the standard seven days at least, to allow people to see and respond to it. Without the consultation, the nomination is indeed out of process, and if I'd known about it before it was picked up for review I would have reverted it. Since it has been reviewed and passed, and by a regular reviewer at GAN, the thing to do is move forward. Flyer22 Frozen, you can wait to see whether it gets improved to the point that you and others here are satisfied, or you can put it up now for an individual reassessment, which is effectively a GA re-review done by yourself, though the goal of a reassessment is always to get the article to GA level if possible. I don't recommend community reassessments in this case, since they drag on forever and these days get few contributors. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. I will do so in the future. TJMSmith (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I usually look at xtools to see the contribution history. Kees08 (Talk) 02:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw the nomination while looking at the talk page, so I had no comments on how long the nom had been open (I guess not long) or the editor nominating (from the history, TJM has at least done a lot recently). Re the awards list, there seem too many for prose. About the sources, all three are perfectly reliable in context. I did promote while noting there can be improvements, but it’s good prose, comprehensive, and I found no flags. Feel free to open a review if you’re actually worried beyond it being passed quickly. Kingsif (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

To add a note on stability: the article hasn’t seen any edit wars or vandalism, actually quite impressive for a notable RD. Kingsif (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Got me thinking... if an article can be nominated, reviewed, and become a Good Article in less than a week then why do we have nominations go over a year without review? ⌚️ (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Article improvements post GA review

I am happy to collaborate with anyone to further improve this article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was close to GA awhile ago and think I tried to find someone to collaborate on it with. I will work on formatting the references and perhaps replacing some. Do you have any problems with me deleting the quotes that are in the references? I personally think it clutters them up and can be borderline copyright violation depending on the source and length of quote. Kees08 (Talk) 02:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea. If it's feasible, trimming out some of the refs would be useful. It's usually not necessary to have more than three citations for simple statements (like in the education section). TJMSmith (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I prefer quotes in references for contentious material or in the case where the source is long and the piece the source is being used to support can be easily overlooked. I disagree with the copyright violation assertion. The quote field is there for a reason, and the quotes are never extensive enough to violate copyright. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Quoting also helps for references that are not easily accessible. Regarding the contentious aspect, the "her calculations proved as critical" quote was added after dispute over noting how essential her calculations were. See here. Simply stating that she participated in calculations did not do description of her role justice. But if editors feel that any of the quotes can be safely dropped from the references, I'm fine with that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah the field has its uses, like the example you give. I thinks some citations go a little far though, such as the one with the quote (from a copyrighted source) of There were an incredible number of factors at play: Earth's rotation, the Moon's location, when you took off, when you reached the Moon. "It was intricate, but it was possible," she said. The mission went according to plan. Her numbers weren't just there to make sure everything went right – she also stepped in when something went wrong. In 1970, Apollo 13, which had been bound for the Moon, was stymied by the explosions of two oxygen tanks. Johnson was one of the mathematicians who scrambled to calculate a safe path back to Earth for the stranded astronauts. That work became the basis of a system that only requires one star observation matched with an onboard star chart for astronauts to pinpoint their location. Kees08 (Talk) 03:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with that being cut from the reference. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@TJMSmith: We could use Bridenstine's official statement instead of his tweet. He uses different words so it would have to be a different quote. Should we have more of those types of statements? I could see just using the NASA administrators statement but I think we typically have more. Kees08 (Talk) 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just going to make some bullets here:

  • This just links to a page with a ton of video links: "Hidden Figures To Modern Figures: Students See SLS Rocket at Michoud". NASA. November 24, 2016. Retrieved July 28, 2019.
I switched the link to the YouTube video this is referencing. TJMSmith (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Once the Congressional Gold Medal is released we can replace the picture in the awards section
  • Would be good to write the awards section in prose
  • Looks like she won a Group Achievement Award in 2016 according to the plaque
  • I would like to remove those external videos and move the photo up (ideally we could make room for a photo of her with the Hidden Figures cast)
  • Need to check all quotations to see if they are logical quotation or not
  • Evaluate See also and remove unnecessary items
  • Honorary Doctorate from William & Mary is in two locations
  • External links: can we include this Makers video in the references somewhere, if it is needed?
  • Her personal life can be expanded, specifically at least how she met her second husband
  • The paragraph starting with From 1958 until her retirement in 1986, needs some work. Not sure any of those direct quotes are needed; hopefully they can at least be cut back
  • When tag for NASA Group Achievement Award needs addressed
Did she win 2 Group awards? This link [5] says it was for the Langley West Computing Unit (December 1, 2016). This link [6] says it was NASA’s Lunar Spacecraft and Operations team (no date) TJMSmith (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decide if membership of church should be expanded, removed, or left alone
  • This big quote from the source should be summarized At first she [Johnson] worked in a pool of women performing
  • Source reliability: description of Thinkquest from archive-it Visited by more than 58 million learners annually, the ThinkQuest Library is an award-winning collection of over 8,000 websites created by students around the world who participated in a ThinkQuest competition. For over 12 years, the ThinkQuest Library provided innovative learning resources created by students for students of all ages on a wide range of educational topics.
    • I think we can find a more reliable source for this subject
  • Katherine G. Johnson Computational Research Facility is written about twice in the legacy and honors section
  • The citation is dead, and what is this sentence even supposed to mean? I'm inclined to remove it and the citation. Since 1979 (before she retired from NASA), Johnson was listed among African Americans in science and technology.
  • As a note, I thought that had been removed prior to the review above (I'd noticed it on an earlier reading), and would support removing it. Kingsif (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What type of honorary degree? I couldn't find anything. honorary degree from the University of Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Need access-dates where appropriate, only after actually checking that the source supports the material
  • Should avoid sources like this: "Obituary: James A. Johnson". O.H. Smith & Son Funeral Home. Retrieved February 24, 2020.

Will list more as I think of them, feel free to strike them if completed. Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Church should be left alone unless other biographical sources that are related to her church or related to religion in general are including it. If they aren't, that's evidence that it's so minor that it's barely worth mentioning here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Ditto elements of her personal life - if it's included in other general biographies that don't have a bias or other self-serving reason to include her personal life, include it, otherwise don't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs helpfully purchased several books related to this and will be able to help expand and supplement/replace citations when they come in next week. I saw some information on her second husband from sources that would warrant inclusion, but we'll see what C&C turns up. Kees08 (Talk) 16:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Hidden Figures is arriving in a few hours and other books next week. However, I am busy this weekend because I am canvassing for the Democratic primaries. I may not be able to put some serious time till late next week. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
What about WP:CANVAS?? Just kidding. I will keep working on the article (identifying sources that should be replaced, sections of the article that need written, and actually working on doing that if I get that far). Still just evaluating the article for now. Kees08 (Talk) 18:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@TJMSmith and Coffeeandcrumbs: Think either of you would have time to work on this in the near future? No problems if the pandemic inhibits your ability to contribute. Kees08 (Talk) 17:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

As seen here (followup note here), I reverted Relevation Animations on the lead image change because the Presidential Medal of Freedom image is already lower and fits better there in the "Legacy and honors" section where that moment Oi afonso is discussed. I understand why a person would want a color image or a much more recent image as the lead image. But, as recently discussed here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, it is common for Wikipedia articles about deceased people to go with images of them in their prime/when they were much younger instead of them in old age. Not that I am opposed to using a lead image of Johnson in her old age.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Legacy and honors

Apropos image, this image illustrates the contrast of remaining in the background while making significant contributions. Also the contrast of barely being allowed in the room. The campaign won an award for the Schwan-Stabilo company. TGCP (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

For the lead image, we should clearly show her face and up close. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean that photo for lead image. I have moved this discussion to a new section to avoid confusion. TGCP (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to think. I like the image the section currently begins with. The section has two images directly beneath it, which means you would need to stagger any new image you added to the section while avoiding sandwiching (see WP:SANDWICHING). And free images are preferred for this topic per WP:Image use policy, but a non-free image may be okay to use when the person deceased. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The photo including the yellow marker is likely copyrighted, so it can't be added directly to the article. If notable for Johnson's legacy as a Hidden Figure, the story could be referenced, and/or the image could be added as an external link. TGCP (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll leave the decision up to you and others. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Katherine johnson

Did she used to draw? 2603:9000:9000:76F9:9943:6301:9FBA:610E (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_Johnson/Archive_2"