This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Computing: Networking This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing This page is supported by Networking task force. Databases (inactive) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases

. ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ArgonautOfHistory: - I got your message on my talk page and thought it best to respond here. I reviewed the article and the project web site. I made some minor changes, which you can see in the history tab. While EHM looks interesting, you are going to have a challenge getting it approved. The sources are all either research papers written by the project's creator, museum pages about some of the projects, school curricula mentioning the project, and a couple of award pages, one of which simply called it "of note". What's missing are sources written about the project by independent entities, which is required to demonstrate notability (as defined by Wikipedia). See WP:GNG. The idea is that the encyclopedia will not be very useful as the encyclopedia of everything. There must be some gatekeeping. So we look to published sources to help us make the distinction of what to include and what to decline. I did a fairly extensive Google search and couldn't find anything significant written about the project. If the papers Nanetti wrote were even cited by a large number of academics, that would help with notability per WP:NSCHOLAR, but I'm not seeing a lot of citations with Google Scholar. This could simply be a failure of the museums and institutions to help get the word out, to help the media learn about this tool and write about it. Perhaps you might reach out to Smithsonian Magazine and see if they would assign a reporter to learn and write about the project. It's a start. TechnoTalk (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TechnoTalk, thank you so much for your review, edits, and feedback. Well noted the above and will work on it. Sincerely, ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TechnoTalk, hope this finds you well. Following your feedback and suggestions, I have updated the draft article with some more independent sources. Could you help to review the updates and advise if any further thoughts, please? Thank you very much! ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ArgonautOfHistory:. Sorry for the delay. I'm not on as much as I used to be. I reviewed the sources you added, and don't see significant coverage of EHM. I can't read the books. There's a paragraph in the SciresIT source mentioning one of Nanetti's papers. The Bystritskiy paper cites two of Nanetti's papers but doesn't mention EHM, as far as I can see. The other sources are papers published by Nanetti, which doesn't help show notability unless they are widely cited, since they are not considered independent sources. Some of the other sources that were there before are links to the projects at the university or museum sites, but no discussion or analysis of the system, or even the reaction to it by academia or the general public. I'm just not seeing evidence that EHM has become notable enough for there to be an article about it. I posted a thread to try to get others involved in the review, who might also have access to the books, but didn't generate much enthusiasm. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Engineering Historical Memory. I recommend you instead consider including some info about the research into different historical artifacts on their articles, such as in the Fra Mauro map article in a section called perhaps Fra Mauro map#Research. At least it's a start until you can get someone to write about EHM. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TechnoTalk, thank you very much for your effort and time to review the updated draft! You are right that a couple of the references (e.g., the paper by Bystritskiy you have mentioned above) may not have explicitly mentioned EHM but their references to Nanetti's works actually indeed refer to the process/methodologies/findings of the EHM research project itself.

Thank you also for posting a thread to get others to review the draft and I look forward to receiving more feedbacks and suggestions from others. I will, as you recommended, include more info about EHM in other related wiki articles first. Thanks again! Sincerely, ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]