 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,428 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
| Submission declined on 23 September 2022 by Siliconred (talk). 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.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 27 July 2022 by Greenman (talk). 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. | |
| Submission declined on 16 February 2021 by CommanderWaterford (talk). 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. | |
Comment: This subject is potentially notable, however current citations do not clearly demonstrate notability. I would recommend reviewing WP:NACADEMIC for criteria to be met. Currently, we have as cites: The subject's personal website, Academy of Europe membership page, a talk they have given, two data entries on them, their CV, and a page listing their publications. Most of these aren't WP:INDEPENDENT and they don't clearly demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY.I'd encourage following the NACADEMIC criteria, given the breadth of publications by the subject and length of their career it seems plausible there is good INDEPENDENT coverage of their work. Feel free to give me a poke once these changes are made and I'm happy to re-review 😊. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Maribel Romero | |
|---|---|
| Born | August 27, 1967 |
| Academic background | |
| Alma mater | University of Massachusetts, Amherst (PhD) |
| Thesis | Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases (1998) |
| Doctoral advisor | Angelika Kratzer |
| Academic work | |
| Discipline | Linguistics |
| Sub-discipline | Semantics |
| Website | Konstanz faculty page |
Maribel Romero (full name: María Isabel Romero Sangüesa) is a linguist and professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Konstanz. She researches semantics and pragmatics, in particular on areas including quantifiers, questions, and counterfactuals.[1][2]