Draft talk:Yung-Ping Chen

The development of this article

I am copying and pasting conversation from my talk page to this page in order to ease conversation on the development of this article. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comments and explanations are very much appreciated and will be of great help in preparing a revised version. Should the proposed revision, when ready, be further discussed with you or should I just resubmit it through the normal process (presumably to another reviewer)? Kpearlman1122 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kpearlman1122: When you are ready please just submit the article for a further review. I think it needs a different reviewer from me since I am now standing too close to it to be able to be as objective as I would wish. Fresh eyes see different things. Do feel able to call in other eyes before you submit it for review. The Teahouse is often an excellent source of advice. Fiddle Faddle 14:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Submitted article "Yung-Ping Chen" (AfC Review)

Is this where I can dialog with Timtrent about a rejected submission, so I can get a better idea of how to fix it? Kpearlman1122 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kpearlman1122: welcome. Before you ask me questions, please check I haven't covered the answers in User:Timtrent/A good article. I'm not saying this to put you off, just to save you time. Ask me whatever you like. I may be able to give you a good answer. When you ask me a question please LINK to the current location of the draft article. Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do; thanks. Is this the correct mode for dialogue (going into Editing User Talk within my section)? Kpearlman1122 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

100% perfect. Looking forward to chatting with you. WHen we talk please remember, mine is but one opinion, and I may not be correct Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. Below I have indicated my questions/comments below each of your review points (in bold):

The gentleman may be notable, but the article does not help people understand that.

I have read your piece on “A Good Article”; thank you; this was very helpful. I had previously read the general guidelines on creating articles and associated material (re tone, style, notability criteria, etc.) and attempted to be consistent with these. I tried to model this piece, in terms of both structure and content, on existing Wikipedia articles from the comparable domain (contemporary economists and social scientists). Evidently, it’s still not quite there. There was language in the first submission that may have better established “notability” but I edited out much of this for the 2nd submission in view of the earlier reviewer’s feedback regarding writing from a neutral point of view and in an encyclopedic manner. For the next revision I have added a new 2nd sentence at the article’s beginning: “He pioneered the concept of home equity conversion (reverse mortgages) in the United States and has developed innovative approaches to the funding of Social Security benefits and long-term care.”

The issue, for me, and it will always be "for me" in this and my other replies since a review is a personal appraisal, albeit within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is that I cannot pull out of the lead paragraph why I ought to read the article.. I appreciate that you have made the tone flatter and more neutral. I think the lead section is one, though, where one must attract more attention, though, as a paradox, ion a WP:NPOV manner. "His scholarship" may have made a contribution, yes. but how was that? Did he do it by studying, lobbying, publishing, standing on a street corner and shouting? Do you see my thought processes here? It is a subtle buyt important change whcih will summarise the article and draw the reader in. I want to be invited in. Fiddle Faddle 07:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, we do not have to do all the heavy lifting ourselves. Once there is sufficient to allow this into main namespace others will pick it up and rewrite sections. Sometimes they will improve it, sometimes not. Just show us why he is notable and show that with references and your work is almost certainly done and the article will be accepted. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Where he has been prolific in writing papers, say so and refer to a few key papers

I had hoped the “Selected Bibliography” would accomplish this. Is there any specific change you could suggest? The goal was not to illustrate Dr. Chen’s prolific writing per se but the importance and influence of his ideas within his areas of contribution, which I felt had been accomplished by the existing subsections, as documented by the References (see following point) and supplemented with the Bibliography.

This is a difficult area. He has a huge swathe of publications, wider than many people, narrower than some. We have to aim for readability. I am inclined to suggest an introduction to the section stating the number of papers he is named upon as author, the topic areas, and a source, external to Wikipedia, as a catalogue of his papers, used as a reference. Then I would take half a dozen, maximum, that the world as a whole sees as his most worthy, because there are comments upon them in WP:RS. I don;t say that this is a definitive approach, just mine.

Then, with all the papers you retain, I would bullet them. Example:

• Chen, Y-P. Taxation of the aged: Some issues and possible solutions. Proceedings, 58th Annual Conference of the National Tax Association, 1965, 206-225.

Bulleting shows the reader that a list is coming, and it is easier to disregard shoudl they so wish, or study in detail if that is their choice. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the enormous list in the section Special tax treatments and economic status of the aged? Are these yoiur references? No-one can be sure, so please make it clear

Yes, they are the References. I had erroneously omitted that heading. This has been corrected.

 Done and done well. Fiddle Faddle 07:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at section Work and see two numbering schemes starting at 1 That is unhelpful

Thank you. This has been corrected.

 Done, thank you Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

References by the gentleman are useless to show that he is notable. You may refer to them in a bibliography (etc) but not use them as references. The previous reviewer mentioned that, but they still remain. Please deal with this.

I can edit the article to eliminate these from the References, but I remain slightly confused by the policy, as I have found numerous articles with Reference lists that include some of the subject’s publications (i.e., separate from a bibliography); some examples are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_E._Roth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card. I understood the previous reviewer’s feedback, and in this draft limited such citations to a relatively small proportion of the total References (8 of 45), and attempted to do so only in the context of a “jumping-off point” (e.g., as in the beginning of the “Work and retirement options for older workers” section) about an idea or concept that was subsequently influential and commented on by others, as also documented and referenced. Also in response to the previous reviewer, I greatly expanded the number of external references to the subject’s work. Is there any further light you can shed on this issue for me, or perhaps reconsider whether a few of the subjects own citations can be acceptable in context, as they appear to be in other articles?

We must always do our best to ignore all other articles when we want to create an excellent one of our own, save only that we can se how to improve upon what the other author has done. IT;s good to look for examples, but we must always look at the main goal, that our work is better then the next editor's work, if we possibly can achieve it.

Let me try to explain in more detail. Let us use a non notable, person, me. I have written many items that have been published. You can, should you so choose, find them, the more so if you know the nom de plume under which I work. The writing of them may well be notable, and the effect they have on the reader may be notable, but, unless that notability is reported by significant coverage in WP:RS the works themselves are not notable. WIth me so far? The answer is that the works themselves, unless commented upon by others do not make the cut as works that Wikipedia would recognise for articles. I know this appears to be a different topic.

As a writer, now back on the topic of personal notability, I cannot be notable for my writing unless my writing is notable, and my writing, without being notable, cannot be considered as an aspect of my life that confers notability upon me.J K Rowling is not notable for writing the Harry Potter material. She is notable for the success of the books and films. Once she is notable then all aspects of her life become notewrothy, though not notable, precisely, for a Wikipedia article on her.

Here is the paradox. Had the Potter books been a pleasant success instead of a staggering success, that would not have made Rowling notable (0.9 probability), but would simply have left us with articles on notable books. IN other words notability is not inherited from the things that surround us.

I suspect your head is now reeling, but you are starting to see why the things we do and say are not, of themselves, references to our notability, but that it is the things that people do or say about us that render us notable. I cannot create my own notability. You (plural) are responsibel for doing that.

You can see how I must go into mental gymnastics to explain this! Fiddle Faddle 07:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Put a little shorter, what he has written is his work. We must have commentary upon that work for it to be a reference. His work exists, but in a vacuum unless someone has used, commented on, even destroyed it Fiddle Faddle 07:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink to other articles

Understood, and I have now read the Wikilinks help material. Do you have any suggestions as to what extent and what types of things should be Wikilinked, i.e., just the major concepts (reverse mortgage, Social Security, etc.), or every possible link (names of universities, etc.)?

You need to link to items that are significant. UNiversity, yes, every date, no, reverse mortgage, absolutely, place of birth, yes, by common acceptance. Shoe size, never. Ok, that is trivialising it, the shoe size. What I mean is that you need to use mature judgment. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Overall dialogue

I will be appreciative of any further advice or guidance you can provide on the above. Thank you for your openness to this dialogue. Kpearlman1122 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is my intention to answer you. I have had a tiring day and will not make a good answer today. If I have not answered by this time tomorrow please feel free to poke me. 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. No need to rush on this. Kpearlman1122 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my ability I hope I have set you towards the right path. As I have said, this is my guidance, and it may differ from other people's guidance. I have one opinion, and I am often more stringent than others. What I would say in any article is that the tighter you can word it the better the article. Be thinking always "How does this add value to what I wish to say?" and "If it adds value,m can I word it tighter, flatter, and better?" Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)