Talk:Hannah Fry

Infobox

Having undone Ritchie333's removal of the infobox, and been undone myself by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi per WP:BRD here we are...

The infobox ensures a standard presentation of biographies. Without it the picture is, on my PC, about 40% of the width of the article, and it looks most un-wiki-like. Its appearance was consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and more could have been added to the box rather than the box removed to satisfy FIM's objection. Cabayi (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The original issue as I saw it was that somebody used it to put in unsourced personal information, such as how many children she has, without a source. Does anyone care how many children I have? I (and I hope the typical reader) am more interested in her application of Markov chain processing to mathematically prove the optimum returns in Monopoly, which is a bit difficult to cram in an infobox. If she becomes more widely known through sustained coverage via television and the academic circuit, we could revisit the infobox at that point, adding that information in with her alma mater. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. The adding of infoboxes is not standard practise around here, and never has been. Omitting one, such as in this case, is entirely the right thing to do. The ODNB doesn't use them and that is far more superior to Wikipedia. Cassianto^Talk 19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The number of children was removed 8 days ago. It's a different issue.

Her principal medium appears to be Radio 4 so an emphasis on TV work isn't going to do her any favours, or reflect reality. Cabayi (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Those were just examples of things that could be added, once the article is expanded. Fry's "partner in crime" in pop mathematics, Matt Parker, doesn't have an infobox. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic example of a disinfobox. It does nothing to make information about the subject easier for readers to find, and merely clutters the article with framing while making the image smaller. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Electric planes

Interview linked to by the superscript number doesn't say anything about aviation. Notreallydavid (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wedding invitation

Was updating article to Phil Lythell (husband) in the personal section, and going to link the couple's very creative wedding invitation ("Possibly the world’s best wedding invitation" https://themakedistrict.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/possibly-the-worlds-best-wedding-invitation), however blogs aren't generally considered good sources of information so backed out. Seems a worthy reference to include, but wondered if it is better to just make the name update and not include the reference? Moggie2002 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Image A

Image B

I replaced the current (left) infobox photo with the one on the right a couple of years ago, and didn't notice it being reverted to the original a few weeks later for better showing off her "have fun with maths" persona. If it's important for an infobox photo to reflect the style of the subject's work, I think the right-hand image better conveys her career as a public speaker, and is much better lit. The current photo looks like a candid one taken at a cafe table where she's not really doing anything, and the lighting is quite flat, although it's better for her facing the camera. Both photos were taken at the same event in 2017.

Which is better for the infobox? Belbury (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally lean towards Image A, since she is facing the camera. Most of her face is obscured in Image B, which, for an encyclopedic context, seems inferior.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither is ideal. A is full face but looks distinctly odd and unflattering; B is a more typical portrait, but less informative. Is something more recent available? --Ef80 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Image C

I'm not seeing any, although I did find another photo on Commons which had previously only been categorised by the event name. It seems better than either of the above, although the microphone shadow isn't ideal. Belbury (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:

• Cite templates will be used where possible.
• I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
• Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed.

This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How about a filmography of podcast, radio, TV, and online video? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Birthday

Hannah was born on the 21st. Evidence: https://twitter.com/FryRsquared/status/1363882763846352896 Rudivanhemert (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Says 22nd? But agent website here does say 21st. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Details in Early life and education

The personal details listed in the beginning of the “Early life and education” section seem excessive at best. The details about her parents occupations and order of her birth are unnecessary. It reminds me of something you’d find in an elementary students bibliography report. Needless to say it doesn’t meet Wikipedia standards. I was going to clean it up a bit, however I noticed there have already been quite a quite a few edits and reverts on it. So I wanted to see if anyone has any feedback/opinion on it’s relevancy so I can make an informed edit if needed. Herenow44 (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Honorific post-noms

Is HonFREng an honorific or a qualification (clue in the name?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I just grabbed from a Google search; feel free to revert if it doesn't fit the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Middle name?

Any source for her middle name? Her Companies House entry here does not even give a middle initial. FreeBMD here says it's Mary. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the general rule for BLPs is, if in doubt, leave it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there is very little doubt. She is clearly attributed as H. M. Fry in her publications e.g. here. But yes, I would agree that, unless there are other Hannah Frys who might be confused with this one, a middle name or initial is not necessarily needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Middle initial is sourced on the page. Can't use Companies House or FreeBMD as sources for this, but the academic sources on the page are perfectly acceptable. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Middle initials are generally omitted unless commonly used or required for disambiguation. ~2025-33247-40 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-33247-40 They are omitted from article titles unless commonly used or required for disambiguation. MOS:NAME, as you linked, clearly states "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information." Strugglehouse (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

"However, if the person is conventionally known by only their first and last names and disambiguation is not required, any middle names should be omitted." ~2025-35606-57 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35606-57 This clearly refers to disambiguation of article titles. Do you really think no BLP should ever contain anyone's middle name? Strugglehouse (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35606-57 Take a look at MOS:FULLNAME - "the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)." Strugglehouse (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35606-57 What is the point in what you are doing? You've now changed what you are doing and are now allowing the content in the lead and infobox? This is only slightly different from what I was doing, and it seems different from what you were previously stating should be done. We should just revert to how it was, as the name should be included, and citations shouldn't be in the infobox. Strugglehouse (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Of the current two sources, her PhD thesis gives her middle initial. The Twitter post is a bit cryptic. But unable to find anything better. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

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:Hannah Fry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 19:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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:

   I've copy edited the article. Please discuss any questions/concerns below.

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

   See comments below.

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:

   Not required for GA, but the cites could use a cleanup (e.g., ref 5 the title is in all caps).

   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):

   Spot check / source review to come.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See comments below.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   OK per Earwig's. Spot check to come.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

   See comment below.

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• What does "understand mathematics better" mean in the lead?
  • Copyedited to "helping the public to improve their mathematical skills"
• I've removed the TED and Youtube subsection as undue. Almost all of the sources in that section are primary sources.
• Almost all of the citations to radio/television appearances are primary source announcements. I think a filmography-type chart would be better here, with only the instances described by secondary sources (such as the pandemic episode from 2019 and Unvaccinated) discussed in prose.

I disagree, per MOS:EMBED, "Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose." Regarding the sourcing, the problem here is that searching for sources is dominated by program listings from the BBC, which is what I would expect - I did a search for The Curious Cases of Rutherford & Fry and went through 12 pages of results trying to find something that wasn't a BBC broadcast episode, or an aggregate of it. But I don't think that's an issue, because all the article is doing is saying that the programme exists and was broadcast at another date. So I don't think due weight is being distorted here.

In my view, NPOV requires that we assign due weight in article prose to material based on the weight and balance of coverage in secondary sources. In any event, the first page of Google News results uncovered brief reviews in The Guardian and The New Statesman for Curious Cases.

I was having difficulty getting Google News to work properly for some reason, but now it is and I can find plenty of news sources about these now, so I've started putting them in (see below)

• In Publications, the summary of the first book isn't cited to any secondary sources.

As above, I don't think this is an issue, as all the article is doing is showing the book exists and adding no further commentary to it. Indeed, this looks like an instance of me adding that source just to stop the article containing completely unverified content

There is further commentary; for example, the article points to the "37% rule" from The Mathematics of Love, but per WP:DUE, that should only be noted in this article if secondary sources say it's an important aspect of the book. A Washington Post review of the book doesn't mention it.

I've thrown in a bunch of better sources, and reduced the reliance of primary sourcing.

• Fry has attempted to overturn the stereotype that mathematics is "boring" and not worth studying. Although she acknowledges the subject is difficult, she believes it is possible to frame it using stories that people can relate to, such as the material in her books. This seems undue for the publications subsection, given that no secondary evaluations of her books are summarized.

As the source given does not mention the word "books" anywhere in it, per WP:V I've removed that unverified claim and copyedited the sentence

I'm still not sure why this is in the publication section, when the interview is about more than her books.

I've moved that sentence further up the article, which talks more about her work and views

• Awards might be better presented as a list. Some of these awards, like ones from her university for teaching, aren't notable and their inclusion seems undue.
  • "Notable" is our requirement for whether something has a separate article, do you mean "undue weight"?
    • Yes, but I think those are largely interchangeable here since non-notable awards tend not to get significant coverage in several reliable sources.

Per MOS:EMBED, I don't think lists are a good idea

MOS:TIMELINE says bibliographies are commonly presented as lists. Unless you're summarizing what secondary sources say, I don't see the value in prose over a list here.

Sorry, I was getting confused with the books. The awards looks too much like "In [year] [this]", "In [other year] [that]", which I don't like and is the sign of unco-ordinated editing. Okay, I've changed this to a list.

• Condense/summarize the long quote in the personal life section.
  • Done, don't particularly like large quotes like this, must have missed trimming it down
• Not required for GA, but alt text for images would be good.

Done, I don't mind do things that are not strictly part of the GA criteria as long as the article is improved.

I am placing this on hold pending resolution of the comments above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been busy all weekend but hopefully I'll get the other issues fixed soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm making progress now, but there are still too many primary sources bouncing around, now I've found some secondary sources to replace them. I should hopefully get these all sorted out soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the issues with the sourcing have more or less been resolved now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Can you add years of publication in parentheses after each of the book titles in the publications section? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Spot check & additional comments

I looked through pretty much every citation and I consolidated/deleted some as duplicative or in the wrong spot. A few notes:

• She was later appointed senior lecturer, then associate professor, then professor in the Mathematics of Cities in 2021. The reference only goes up to senior lecturer.

I have added an additional source that shows her tenure as professor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• From series 22, in September 2024, Dara Ó Briain took over from Rutherford as co-presenter of Curious Cases. The current citation is an episode list. Is there a press release or secondary coverage announcing the change?

Martinevans123 recently added this. I can't find an obvious secondary source myself, only the BBC entry and O Briain's twitter feed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What about this, this or this? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC) p.s. also, for one episode, this

• She also hosted The Joy of Data on BBC Four, which examines the history and human impact of data. Deleted first ref after this; broken link and not needed.
• A further credit for 2016 was her co-hosting an episode of the BBC Two Horizon series with Dr Xand van Tulleken, titled How to Find Love Online. Deleted second ref after this because it doesn't discussion Horizon. Only ref is now a primary source. I think it should be deleted anyways because it's the only single episode mentioned here.

I've added a source to The Guardian which verifies this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• She has presented further programmes for the BBC explaining the mathematics behind COVID-19 and other pandemics. Primary source to one programme, not multiple.

An existing Guardian source talks about about programmes generally - "Fry had been unexpectedly across the threat, having set out to predict the impact for Contagion: The BBC Four Pandemic in 2018. The large-scale data collection she led as part of the citizen-science experiment ended up being applied to Covid-19 research two years later." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• and a panellist on Have I Got News for You on 15 April and 28 October 2022 on BBC One. She has presented the show on 24 November 2023, 12 April and 18 October 2024. The source only supports one of the episodes.

I've trimmed this to "has appeared on" - it's not really important what the exact dates are, and it's not a vitally important part of her career. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The second, The Indisputable Existence of Santa Claus (2015), discusses various Christmas-related topics and how mathematics can be involved in them, including a fair Secret Santa, decoration of Christmas trees, winning at Monopoly, and comparing the vocabulary of the Queen's Christmas message to that of the lyrics of Snoop Dogg. Only the NPR reference discusses the book, but it doesn't go into this level of detail.

I remember writing some of that text, and it looks like the wrong source got removed at some point, which I've put back in - it's this one "how to set up a secret Santa so it’s totally fair; how to decorate your tree mathematically; how to win at Monopoly. We also looked at how predictable the Queen’s speeches are and measured her articulacy against certain rappers: her vocabulary is narrower than Nicki Minaj’s, but about the same as Snoop Dogg’s." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The name of her husband wasn't in either source, so I removed it. He also seems like a low-profile person so his name should not be included per BLP.

Fair enough, might have been in an earlier non-BLP compliant source that I took out while cleaning up the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Removed the teaching award.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think those are all addressed now, sorry about the wait - what's left to do now? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll do one final look and then probably pass this. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 12 May 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.

Minor detail re phrasing

It seems clumsy and inappropriate to say 'In 2023, Fry revealed [my emphasis] she could no longer have children...', since it's mentioned just above that she'd had a hysterectomy. Might it not make more sense to put 'reflected on the fact that', 'first talked about the fact that', or similar, rather than 'revealed'? Kitb (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of any criticism of, or improvement on this notion, I've made the change! Kitb (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That change looks worse than what was just looked at in the GA review above; I've replaced it with something simpler. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

So she was a hoping for "a third like her mother"? Presumably the current two are not like her mother! But I tend to agree that, after the hysterectomy in February 2021, any more children were no longer an option. I think it's her regret that might need to be mentioned for 2023. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The whole sentence is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. That a hysterectomy prevents pregnancy is not something this article needs to point out. How many children Fry might have wanted, or how many her mother had, is not encyclopedic. I am inclined to remove the whole sentence, and to thin the reproductive health part, which I think is overwritten. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think her personal views on her own medical procedures and motherhood are wholly appropriate. But I'd agree the text currently seems to point out that a hysterectomy prevents pregnancy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The article misrepresented her view on the cancer surgery (she said it was unnecessarily conservative, not that it was unnecessary) and said those views were about the reconstructive surgery, rather than the initial surgery. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your corrections, which are good improvements. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I see at the top of this talk page I was concerned about the "Personal life" section over 7 years ago (although back then is was because it was of unsourced BLP violations) and I still think this section should be kept to a minimum to keep due weight in order, particularly on a BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't expect to see such a large amount of material about someone's reproductive health in most BLPs, but as she has made a whole documentary about it (and that documentary is consonant with her other work as a science communicator), I don't think it's undue here. What's left (her husband and children) is minimal and well sourced. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If Fry wasn't specifically a science communicator, and the documentary partly about the scientific and mathematical problems of medical decision making (if, instead, it was some famous singer talking about their cancer) then what we have would, I think, be undue. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by History6042 talk 15:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Fry in 2017

• ... that Hannah Fry (pictured) once compared Elizabeth II's Christmas messages to the lyrics of Snoop Dogg using mathematics?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Knox Mountain Hillclimb
  • Comment: Driveby nom.

Improved to Good Article status by Ritchie333 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 295 past nominations.

Launchballer 14:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC).

• I will review this nomination. – Editør (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• The article is new enough (GA on 12 May 2025), is long enough (8022 characters of prose), has no copyright issues (per GA review), is presentable (per GA review and readthrough). The hook is interesting and short enough, but not cited in this nomination. Image is freely licensed, clear at smaller size, and use in the article. QPQ is done. Could you provide a source for the hook? And since Hannah Fry is a mathematician, maybe you can use "mathemetics" earlier in the sentence (ALT1)? – Editør (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that Hannah Fry (pictured) once used mathematics when comparing Elizabeth II's Christmas messages to the lyrics of Snoop Dogg?

The source is .--Launchballer 02:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I approve the original hook. – Editør (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Academic work

I'm not used to editing articles that are fiercely policed like this. But there is not much on her research and academic achievements. She is an honorary fellow of the Learned Society of Wales (Hon FLSW, 2023), and the Hon FREng ought to be in the awards / honours section too. She has cited the res:publica conference in Berlin where she was challenged on how there were privacy issues in using location data and I would mention that. She was president of the Mathematical Association and her presidential address was quite interesting. And she interviewed Andrew Wiles, Roger Penrose and Tim Gowers for Oxford's London lectures, talking about doing maths. Ca3tki (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead image

Apparently in a recent "Rest is Science" podcast (I haven't seen that specific one but have watched quite a few), Hannah Fry objected to the lead image, so a TA has reverted it back to the image that passed a GA review. The image was added by ARandomName123 (talk · contribs) here.

The image is File:Hannah_Fry4_c.Simons_Foundation.jpg and was provided by the Simons Foundation.

I am usually sensitive to BLP subjects, but would appreciate everyone else's thoughts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Does this Spotify link work? Automatic transcript messes it up a bit. I am not sure how to interpret her words, but she doesn't seem to heavily object to the picture change. Sorry, don't know what else to say. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The image is nearly a decade old at this point, but since she objects (and because it's also decently high quality), I'm fine with reverting to the older photo. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Birthplace

The Guardian here says: "Fry, 39, was born in Essex, and grew up just over the Hertfordshire border, in Hoddesdon, near Harlow, the middle child of three sisters. Infobox and "Early life" gives Harlow as place of birth. Not sure what the The Telegraph says, if anything, as it's paywalled. So now added New Statesman which explicitly states Harlow, as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this. The Telegraph ref states "Fry grew up in Ware, on the Essex/Hertfordshire border, the middle daughter of three.", so the new source for her actual birth place is required anyway. Thanks! Strugglehouse (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)