Talk:Jane Rigby

Requested move 13 October 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jane Rigby moved to Jane Rigby (disambiguation) and tagged as WP:ONEOTHER, Jane Rigby (astrophysicist) → Jane Rigby. (closed by non-admin page mover) CNC (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Jane Rigby (astrophysicist) → Jane Rigby – There are two articles on people named Jane Rigby, and the astrophysicist is the clear primary topic. Pageview data shows that the astrophysicist gets more pageviews per day than the bowler gets per month. From what I can find using Google, only one publication (Zimbabwean Herald) discusses the bowler, whereas the astrophysicist has many sources describing her life and career. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Support. I am convinced by the argument above that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and with only two articles on this title (and no other notable Janes Rigby to be found in my searches) we would no longer need a separate disambiguation page. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jane Rigby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 03:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this during Women in Green's 9th edit-a-thon! This review is part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Paula Ben-Gurion/GA1. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Her full name "Jane Rebecca Rigby" (as was used in her dissertation) should be included in the lead and first sentence of the "Education and personal life" section.
  • I will not do this, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. If Rigby mentioned her middle name on a social media account, then that would mean she's okay with it being public; a dissertation is publicly available but it is not public in the same way. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
    • I understand the hesitancy, but I will note that "Jane R. Rigby" is used in many of the papers she has published (see Web of Science and ORCID) as well as her PennState and Yale pages, and apparently her CV as well. If not the whole middle name, then I think the initialism should be included, as this is clearly a more public name. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
      • Good point. Added the initial. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Education and personal life

• Are there any sources out there on Rigby's date/year of birth? If not, is there some way we could find out? It's a little surprising to me that nothing is included here.
  • I can't find any sources mentioning Rigby's age. We know she graduated high school in 1996, so we can assume she was born approximately 18 years before that, but that would be original research. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• "who brought her to the first telescope she worked with, the McDonald Observatory in Texas" Should this say "at the McDonald Observatory"?
  • Fixed.
• "She gained a research interest the growth of galaxies with supermassive black holes" Suggest: "She took a interest in and researched the growth of galaxies with supermassive black holes".
  • I personally think the phrase "research interest" is more understandable. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• "Carnegie Fellow" seems to redirect to Carnegie Corporation of New York, which doesn't explain this fellowship programme at all. Given she was a fellow at Carnegie Observatories, would it make sense to just shorten this to simply "fellow" and link to Fellow?
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [8][5] I can't seem to verify that she "spent six months" as a postdoctoral fellow at UoA in either of these sources, or the order in which she did these fellowships. The Los Angeles Blade also doesn't mention her fellowship at UoA.
  • Removed. (I could maybe cite this to NASA's website as a primary source, but it's not that important of a detail so I've just removed it.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• This Astrobetter source appears to be a self-published blog, so I'm not so sure this is a reliable source. It's only cited once, so could easily be trimmed.
  • Removed.
• The "American Astronomical Society" citation should move the publication out of the title field, and it's linked full name American Astronomical Society should be used in place of "aas.org".
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [9][10] Verified.
• "Andrea Leistra, whom she later married" When/where did they marry?
  • Found a source... and the source is an obituary for her wife. :( Added both years. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
    • That's very sad to hear. I'm wondering, judging by the obituary, if you think Andrea Leistra was notable enough to have an article about her written at some point? If so, it might be worth redlinking her name. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
      • No, the obituary appears to be written and paid for by the family. There's no actual press coverage of Leistra, besides some mentions of her and Rigby together. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Citation to Nature should include a link to Nature (journal) and a publication date.
• "a California proposition that would have banned same-sex marriage" Rather than being vague and submarine-linking this, I'd suggest just calling it "the 2008 California Proposition 8, which intended to ban same-sex marriage".
  • Done.

Career

• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• "Rigby has authored over 150 papers" What about? Can we briefly discuss some of the more important ones?
  • The only specific paper that is mentioned in RSes is the publication of the first results of the JWST, so I have added another detail about that. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• "Upon taking the job," Which job? We just mentioned two. Or are these the same job? Either way, it's unclear
  • Rephrased to clarify that the JWST is at Goddard Space Center.
• "reinstating featured" -> "reinstating features"
  • Fixed
• "after the it launched" -> "after it launched"
  • Fixed
• "Rigby's job was to commission the JWST" What does it mean to "commission" it? This is after it launched?
  • Removed the "commissioned" statement as the following statement is more clear about what the job was.
• "Her job was" This reads as repetitive, right after a sentence that says "Rigby's job was [...]".
• "The telescope was very successful" According to whom? By what metrics was it "very successful"?
  • Rephrased to "The telescope exceeded performance metrics, including having very little light leak." — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• "the JWST's first images" What were the images of?
  • Added a mention of Webb's First Deep Field. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Sptocheck: [7] Verified.
• Sometimes the text says "the JWST" and other times just "JWST", without the definite article. This should be standardised to one or the other.
  • Standardized to "JWST".
• "a project that looks to use" Why is this in the future tense? Has this not been done yet?
• "She announced the project's" This "project" is the one on star formation or TEMPLATES?
  • Rephrased statement to address this and the above point. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• "she managed the scientific goals" What were these goals?
  • The source doesn't specify. I don't think the goals themselves are relevant, as her job is as a manager rather than the person actually doing the science. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: [7][12] Verified.
• Do we have any updates on her work with the JWST over the past year? Right now the biography stops with her receiving the Medal of Freedom in May 2024.
  • I couldn't find anything. The only news stories since then are either routine coverage of events or quoting her for other NASA-related topics that aren't directly related to her. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: [3][9][10] Verified.

Awards and honours

• A full name for the websites, rather than the long urls ("irsa.ipac.caltech.edu", "science.gsfc.nasa.gov", "scicolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov"), would be more useful.
  • Done.
• The "Science Journal December 2013" citation appears to be malformed.
  • Fixed.
• Is there a better source we can be citing for the "Goddard Space Flight Center Peer Award", rather than using Rigby's own CV? Without an independent source, this seems like it would be too unduly self-serving to be ok under WP:ABOUTSELF.
  • Removed.
• This citation to Nature needs an author credit, should link to Nature (journal) and provide a publication date.
  • Done.
• No publication or editor credit provided for the "NASA Goddard Astrophysicist Awarded 2022 LGBTQ+ Scientist of the Year" citation.
  • Done.
• Editor credit should be provided for the BBC News citation.
  • Done.
• Is giving a plenary lecture really an award or honour?
  • The Morning Star Publications source lists it as such. (And it wasn't listed on Wikipedia at the time of the source, so this isn't a case of WP:citogenesis.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Author, publication date and full publication with link to The Advocate (magazine) should be provided for the Advocate citation.
  • Done.

Lead and infobox

• I'm not sure being featured in Nature's 10 is an "award" per se.
  • Removed—regardless of whether it is an award, it's not important enough for the infobox. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A few cases where the prose is unclear or uses incorrect grammar.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   One minor issue with the manual of style on linking.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Several citations are incomplete and one is malformed.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   There's a couple sources that I think fall short of reliability standards, but otherwise it's all good.

   C. It contains no original research:

   One case where a spotcheck failed verification; otherwise no apparent signs of OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No plagiarism noticed in spotchecks; Earwig only flags properly-attributed quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There's some parts where I think more detail could be provided.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No major deviations, it's all focused.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All neutral, as far as I can see.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since GA nomination; last reverts took place over a year ago.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have valid PD/CC licenses.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are all of the subject and are properly captioned, although they could do with alt text.

   • Regarding alt text: I already included alt text for two of the images, but I think the captions alone provide enough information for the other two images. Do you disagree? — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article was very interesting to read, but there's still some issues with prose, verifiability and broadness that are holding it back from meeting GA criteria. Feel free to ping me once the above comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to give this another look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

   • @Grnrchst: K, think I got everything. Thanks for the review! — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

   • @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Thanks for seeing to everything. I'm basically ready to pass this, but I have a couple minor follow-up comments first. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

   • @Grnrchst: Responded. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

   • Ok, I'm more than happy to pass this now. Great work on this! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Jane Rigby in 2023

• ... that Jane Rigby (pictured) was too short to become an astronaut, so she became an astronomer?

• Source: She became an astronomer because she was too short to fly the space shuttle.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sinheungsa Buddhist Paintings, Template:Did you know nominations/Nuala O'Faolain

Improved to Good Article status by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 57 past nominations.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)