Talk:Giuseppe Mazzotta

Primary sources

This article is entirely dependent upon primary sources. It needs the addition of secondary sources, which are more reliable. See also: WP:SECONDARY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The Works section needs citations to verify the content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The CV confirms these. He lists the full 21 page one as a PDF on his Yale bio and it verifies it. It's not independent but we typically consider CVs reliable for verification purposes. I haven't checked worldcat, but it should be able to confirm the books if they're held in libraries. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, "The CV confirms these"; it's a cv article. Check out WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7, "Simple listings". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with NOT: this isn't a simple listing. It's a stub that contains the basic biographical information of a notable professor that can be expanded on in reliable sources. This does not list anywhere near the entirety of the CV (21 pages). It might should have a broader selection of works, I'm not sure because it isn't the academic subject matter I'm most familiar with. I'll ask DGG to weigh in here since he has the most experience of any of our editors with academic biographies. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The subject is notable, but the article needs to provide some proper context, beyond existing as a directory listing-style article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Written as a cv

The article reads like a directory listing and resume. Needs more expansion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs expansion but I also think the tag is inappropriate: it's a stub of an academic. It didn't read as a CV when the tag was first placed: it named the current job and a major professional posting. Adding major works is standard for academic biographies. The career body section adds enough prose so that it isn't anything like the academic CVs I've read. If this were at NPP I'd probably click the green tick: the tag isn't helpful to the reader and this is far from a CV, especially when compared to many other academic articles we have here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

All that's needed is for the subject's contact information to be placed atop the page, perhaps in bold and with some ---- markup to add a line and some spacing. Notice how this would then read exactly as a cv, although a concise one. As written, this is a cv for a professor. Of course, I won't be adding any contact info, but the article is what it is. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you this article is far from ideal, but it is also far from a CV: academic CVs list every single posting an individual has ever had and every single work they have produced. I've seen some reach as long as 20 pages, and I'm sure there are those that are longer. In a biographical article about an academic we report on the most important things about them: namely what academic postings they have held, their significant works, and any significant professional service they have done. This is a bare bone stub, but it contains the minimum acceptable information for an academic article. It certainly isn't a great article, but the tag isn't helpful: this is a stub that's generally in line with what we expect from stubs on academics. Tagging it doesn't serve to convey to the reader anything that they need to know, unlike our more serious tags such as unreferenced. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate the recent minor expansion, will this just be another WP:PERMASTUB? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not my area of familiarity: I'm most familiar with academic philosophy and religious history. The subject is clearly notable, however, and someone who was more familiar with scholarship on Rennasaince literature should be able to expand it: he was the president of the Dante society and holds a very significant posting at Yale: that inevitably means his works have been analyzed by other academics and discussed in reliable sources. This article could very easily be expanded by someone who knows where to look for sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything TonyBallioni says here is perfectly correct. In addition , because of the factors he mentioned, according to WP:PROF, a Distinguished Professorship at a major research university -- and Sterling Professorship at Yale is among the most important professorships at one of the most famous universities -- is recognized as proof of notability. The WP:PROF standard is entirely independent of the GNG -- unlike the variable status of some of the other guidelines, it is an alternative to the GNG, not just "presumptive" or additional. And it has been stably recognized as such for at least 10 years now. As for expansion, every article in WP can do with expansion--saying so is like our former tag of "needs improvement". DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)