User talk:JRtmj

Hi JRtmj. Thank you for your work on Sandip Sinharay. Another editor, Kingsacrificer, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please format the References section properly.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsacrificer}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsacrificer (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I added a heading "References" above the references list. Is that what you suggested me to do? Please let me know if I need to do more about the formatting. I think the references are correct and all the links in them work. Thanks. JRtmj (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Most references are just links. No mention of author or publication. This needs more work. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, please don't circumvent the AfC process as you did with Sandip Sinharay, which I have now blanked and turned into a redirect back to the draft.

If your draft is declined, that indicates it is not yet ready for mainspace. I understand that waiting for re-review can be frustrating, but there's no rush to get your article published, and there's plenty of other things to do on Wikipedia while you wait.

It is inappropriate to publish an article unilaterally after it has been declined. Please work on it in draftspace snd allow it to be re-reviewed. I have not yet tagged the redirect for deletion as a redirect out of mainspace; please take the time to copy any newly-added information from the edit history of Sandip Sinharay over to the Draft:Sandip Sinharay (Psychometrician) page, and then tag the redirect with {{db-r2}} when you're done. Athanelar (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Athanelar, Thanks for your comments. I posted the entry in the mainspace only after making changes suggested by AlphaCore who declined the original entry (you can check yourself the difference between the 1st and 2nd versions). Anyway--I understand your concerns and will comply. I could not see the edit history of the mainspace entry (that you blanked)---so tried to remember the newly-added information and added them to the AfC draft. I also tagged the mainspace entry with db-r2, though I am not 100% sure if I got it right and will appreciate if you check it. Regard, JRtmj. JRtmj (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the reason you couldn't see the edit history is because the old one was already deleted, so you just made a new one to tag it for deletion, oops.

Sorry the edit history was lost before you could copy your changes, and thanks for your cooperation. Athanelar (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the db-r2 from the blank article in the mainspace. Hope that is fine. Thanks. JRtmj (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Vestrian24Bio were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission appears to read more like a résumé than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, that provide secondary analysis of the subject's life in context. In contrast, résumés will tend to list individual accomplishments and rely on self-published sources, which might unduly focus on positive events and fail to properly balance their weight. Please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies by using independent, reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sandip Sinharay and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vestrian24Bio 11:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vestrian24Bio, Thanks for your useful review. However, I am a little confused after reading it.

I first wrote a short entry for this person. A reviewer (WeirdNAnnoyed) wrote "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article... Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format." So, I tried to make it formal/encyclopedia by treating the Wikipedia biography of Matthias von Davier as a model, because Dr. von Davier and Sinharay have similar career trajectories. Both worked for Educational Testing Service, Dr. Sinharay is the editor of Psychometrika that Dr. von Davier was a previous editor of, both hold chair positions, both have published books and articles etc. So the entry for Dr. Sinharay now has a similar structure to Dr. von Davier's and they have similar sources as well (some independent, some authored by him etc.). But you wrote that the submission looks like a resume. Did I make a mistake by treating Dr. von Davier's bio as a model? Other people with similar career trajectories and Wikipedia bios are Alina von Davier, Rebecca Zwick, Paul Holland etc.--should I use one of their bios as a model?

Also, I would like your opinion about the notability of Dr. Sinharay. He is the editor of a journal and has been editor of 2 journals in the past, he has a chair position, he has won prestigious awards in his field, and published articles and books with reputed publishers, all like Dr. von Davier. Do you think Dr. Sinharay's bio satisfies the Wikipedia criterion of notability? If not, I will not revise it to save your time. If yes, I will appreciate some guidelines from you on how to revise.

Finally, you mentioned the need of independent reliable and published sources---don't references 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 34, 35 count as such sources?

Regards,

JRtmj JRtmj (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources such as 2, 3 are WP:ROUTINE sources. 6, 28, 34, 35 are WP:PRIMARY sources not independent.

In-depth coverage on independent sources (in most cases general news websites) is required to establish notability. Vestrian24Bio 03:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Vestrian24Bio for answering one of my questions. I will wait for answers to two other questions that I asked: (a) Did I make a mistake by structuring the bio of Dr. Sinharay like the published Wikipedia bio of Dr. von Davier? (b) Does Dr. Sinharay satisfy the criteria of notability? (if not, where does his bio fall short compared to someone like Dr. von Davier, who did not receive in-depth coverage from news websites either?) Regards, JRtmj JRtmj (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This page is not even close to von Davier's page in terms of structure and content. Vestrian24Bio 03:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vestrian24Bio, There are two Dr. von Daviers--Alina and Matthias---are you sure that you are comparing to the right Dr. von Davier--Matthias? Matthias von Davier's bio has an intro, then "Education and Early Career", "Career", "Methodological Research", "Contributions to Psychometric Theory", "Applied Research", "Publications", "Awards and honors", "Bibliography", "Books", "Selected articles", "References". In comparison, Dr. Sinharay's has an intro, "Education", "Professional Career", "Methodological Research", "Publications", "Awards and honors", "Bibliography", "Books", "Selected patents and articles", "References". Is this not similar enough in structure?

Please note that I could have expanded the current one more (for example, I can easily add a "Contributions to Psychometric Theory" section), but decided to keep it short to avoid "peacock" terms. Also, I had some info about the keynote-type lectures of Dr. Sinharay (like Dr. von Davier's has), but the editor "Ldm1954" deleted them. Thanks, JRtmj JRtmj (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the right one; the draft has similar heading but not content. The other user would've removed it because they were not written with proper NPOV. Vestrian24Bio 04:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Vestrian24Bio, Wait a minute, please. Earlier you wrote "not even close in terms of structure and content"--now you wrote "similar heading but not content." "not even close" to "similar" (I am referring to structure)??? What is going on here? Is there something that I am missing? Also, can you please point me to a sentence that is not written from a neutral point of view in the current entry, noting that I modeled it after Dr. von Davier's bio? In fact, Dr. von Davier's has a "In his highly cited studies," which is probably a "peacock term"--I totally avoided such language. Thanks, JRtmj JRtmj (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

"structure and content" does not refer to headings; it means the paragraphs which are still not even close to that. Also, there are unsourced statements in the draft that I just noticed. Vestrian24Bio 06:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Vestrian24Bio, To ask one of my original questions, is it a case of my poor writing and lack of citations or does the biography not deserve to be in Wikipedia? Thanks, JRtmj JRtmj (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Writing and citations are the problem here. Vestrian24Bio 10:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I read some other Wikipedia bios, including those listed as "good articles", and am trying one last time. I made it much shorter and included what I thought are independent and reliable sources except may be one. If this attempt is unsuccessful, then I will give up for now. Thanks for your time. JRtmj (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and there is no indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sandip Sinharay and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

He seems to satisfy numbers 2 and 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Do you think the sources do not support that? Or do you think that his career award from National Council on Measurement in Education and his editorship of Psychometrika are insignificant? He has been editor of two other journals in his field, but I omitted them to keep it short. JRtmj (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The NCME Award is not a "highly prestigious academic award" it doesn't even have an article about it? Theroadislong (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the editorship non-prestigious as well? Thanks, JRtmj (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)