Talk:Mary K. Estes

Comments
Comments from Rothscak. You have a really good start on your Wikipedia page. I like that you gave an explanation of the virus. The Wikipedia format looks good. It's nice you were able to add a picture to your page. I know it's still a work in progress, but so far it looks good. Rothscak (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback
The content of your article is close to meeting criteria, as well as the formatting. You need to address: Your article is close to being finished!S L Seston (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Add links to other wikipedia articles. Currently you have NONE! Link to the pages on vaccines, rotavirus, etc.
 * Add a scientist infobox so that it appears above the picture of the rotavirus.
 * Fix reference 3.
 * You need more references and citations, as well as a Notable Publications section. Use these search results and summarize how many articles she has published and how many times she has been cited https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Mary+K+Estes&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C50&as_sdtp=

This is the feedback I am getting, and I don't know how to change it…

"I know that you are new to Wikipedia and just working on an academic assignment, but this is just a heads up that you took out some important sources from Mary K. Estes without explaining why. If an article's subject cannot be proven notable, the article faces the risk of deletion. Another editor proposed that your article be deleted, but I attempted to save it because Estes is certainly notable.

The way that we protect it from deletion is by including independent sources that provide evidence of the subject's significance. The AAAS and NAS sources that you deleted were two easy ways to prove notability (more info on professor notability at WP:PROF). Your edit also re-added information that seems better suited for rotavirus than for the Estes article. The Estes entry wouldn't have sections about structure or symptoms, because Estes isn't a virus or a medical condition.

It's also a good idea to use an edit summary (the little blank comment box above the Save page button) with every edit. That way, people know why you decided to add or remove certain information. I hope this helps you and that you'll consider undoing your last edit so that it better reflects the subject's notability. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)"

I made your suggested changes, but I feel like my article is still getting torn apart. Right now I do not even want it to be live. smkaspr (talk)


 * Hey - sorry. That was me. I don't mean to make you feel like your article is being torn apart. All of us - the community of Wikipedia contributors - work together to make sure that each article is as good as it can be. It's just not typical encyclopedic style (or Wikipedia style) to provide sections of details about a virus within a scientist's biographical entry. Is that the part that made you feel most uncomfortable? Or is it the part about placing the two citations (to AAAS and NAS) back inline? It has to be hard to learn about all of these details so rapidly. Most of us kind of ease into Wikipedia editing, learning various aspects here and there. I know that's harder to do in the context of a school assignment. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of Wikipedia
Encyclopedias are compendiums of existing information and not channels for doing original research. To add information to Wikipedia, summarize existing works which meet Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria.

I just deleted all information in this article which was not backed by a citation. Even more could be deleted because what remains is WP:SPS by an organization which has a financial interest in promoting this person.

Cite sources without a financial tie to the subject of this article.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please allow more time
The author of this article needs a little more time to respond to the comments made here. While attempting to address the concerns of EricEnfermo, changes were made to a section that had credible citations. Another secondary source to use as well. It is somewhat difficult for a new editor to make these changes if large scale deletions are made quickly, as it is confusing as to how to restore to a previous version, etc. S L Seston (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am happy to work with you and the author. I know that this was created in the context of a class. Here are some points to consider -
 * I checked the history and saw the other article states. I am unable to identify any acceptable citation used at any time in the history of this article. I encourage you to identify and share the citation you want to use here before continuing with work. I fear that no usable citation has yet been identified and it would be best to clarify this now, because there can be no summary without a source to summarize.
 * I acknowledge that getting criticism can be stressful, but I hope that you feel that on Wikipedia it shows care for quality and support for sharing information. Wikipedians are a friendly bunch. If there is any that I or anyone else can do to be more accommodating then ask.
 * It is an unusual concession to ask that a Wikipedia article remain live when it is in a problem state. This is what you are requesting. There is a rule to ignore all rules when it helps users contribute to Wikipedia, and that applies in this case, but in the future with other students, consider talking with Wikipedians about the best way to prevent confusion before it happens so that there is less need to ask for special concessions on a hurried schedule. If you want a little more time then that is your desire - most Wikipedians would want to work on their own time without pressure or special exceptions, and that option remains in this case if you ever want it. Right now the article is getting attention from several volunteers to accommodate you and I hope that this support is useful to you.
 * Thanks for contributing - just speak up if you need anything. I hope that we can put the article into a stable state within a few days at most.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Instructor Final Feedback
I have made some edits to your article in an attempt to improve the accuracy and sources used. The main deficiency of your article was that you didn't use the secondary sources I provided you with this week, nor did you summarize the other sources you used effectively. Some of the information you included was inaccurate, such as that the rotavirus vaccines were no longer in use. In fact, there are many reliable sources that explain the potential problems with the vaccines, the studies that were done, and the eventual decision of the FDA that the vaccines are safe to use although there is a small increase in risk for gastrointestinal complications. You didn't need to provide a detailed summary of this information, but you should have insured that the information you provided was correct. This only required a google search and reading a few short articles by the CDC (checking all sources for dates to be sure they had been updated or reviewed THIS year). I hope you have learned more about Wikipedia and the importance of checking secondary sources for reliability and accuracy whenever you are depending on them for any reason.S L Seston (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)