User:SaladH/Adoption

, Here I'll post useful resources and advice on various edits, etc.

Editing Essentials

 * I've noticed you haven't been signing some of your posts. On talk pages, remember to end all of your posts with ~
 * In your posts, you should "ping" the person you intend to look at your post. You do this by writing, for instance to ping me you would write

Creating Articles

 * Per WP:External Links (see the section "Minimize the number of links"), you shouldn't have many external links. I see that in the draft "Draft:Yi-ren Wang" you have many external links in the "external links" section. Try to minimize these. Preferably, only include a link to the official website in the info box, and get rid of the external links section.
 * In the citations on your draft article, some of the first ones seem to be created manually. Try to always use the automatic citation generator (or entering in the information yourself in the "manual" tab) unless it isn't working for some reason

Reading of the Week
Every week, I'll post one of Wikipedia's policies that you should read through. This week, read through WP:Notability. Although Wikipedia has many subject specific notability guidelines (for astronomy and biographies, for example), the "general notability guidelines," as they are called, are the easiest guidelines to go off of. Your draft article is at risk of not meeting these criteria given the sources in the article because you need at least three independent and reliable sources, but currently, you have two that could meet both of these criteria.

Speedy Deletion of American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics
, I see that your page was marked as being nominated for speedy deletion. I know this can hurt, but unfortunately I looked for sources on this organization and I don't think it is notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I've included that in the "reading of the week" section to read, and I think now more than ever it's critical that you read through these guidelines. Essentially, there must be multiple (at least three) independent, reliable sources to support your article. Let me know if you think you've found some here and I'll evaluate them for you. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/human-immunology) count as a source? SaladH (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , in general, links to entire journals don't count as sources. Are you referring to a specific article that mentions the organization? Sam-2727 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This specific article mentions the organization, does it qualify as a credible source? SaladH (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I've found some more independent reports involving ASHI here, here, here, here, here , and here.


 * , generally I would say government applications don't count towards the notability guidelines. While it might be a reliable source, it isn't independent of the company since the company is writing the application. Notability guidelines are supposed to distinguish some organizations from others, but every company will have applications, stuff like that, in the public record. I'm unable to access any of those articles (they are paywalled). But the titles suggest that these aren't independent sources either. The title of one of them is "Results from the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics-College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Program," which suggests that these are results from the organization, so not independent. If one of the paywalled sources actually is independent and I just can't see that, you can quote/summarize the relevant part here (being sure not to commit any copyright violations) and I'll take a look. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this set of guidelines for histocompatibility laboratories count as an independent source? "“testing standards better governed by lab accrediting agencies like ASHI or CAP”" NORD also has a page listing ASHI on it while stating it provides the information on the page purely for informational purposes and in no way promotes or endorses any organizations, so would it qualify as an independent source? SaladH (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the articles I linked mentions the common alleles and well documented alleles (CWD) first published by ASHI, which helps researchers compare different populations' CWD internationally. Mentions of ASHI's CWD can also be found in other articles. SaladH (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was able to access this article that you posted. This would not count towards the notability guidelines though because it is published by the organization, so isn't independent of them. wouldn't count towards the guidelines because there is only a "trivial" reference to the organization. It's only mentioned in passing reference as an example "better governed by lab accrediting agencies like the..." Sam-2727 (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I dig into this more, I'm finding sources that could establish notability. For instance, is a third party independent source. I'll try finding more and keep you updated. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ok this is what I think you should do. Just make a section under Human Immunology that has the limited information available on this organization. Most of the coverage I'm finding of them is in connection to this journal. Make the section titled "American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics," and in the first sentence, say that it is the organization that runs the journal. I think this is the best option moving forward. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Song Dynasty
, I noticed that you created the Southern Song dynasty page, only to have a proposed merger. If this was me, I would be extremely frustrated as that's a very long article to write! Moving forward, this will be a good opportunity to learn how merges work (which I suspect will be the outcome). Also it's a good idea to before creating an article investigate whether the content would find a better place on an article that has already been created. There are over 6,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, after all. Also, article improvement is a critical part of editing. More so, in my opinion, then actual article creation. Just something to keep in mind. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is quite frustrating honestly to see all that gone, but I'd still like to participate in the merging process. How is it done?
 * First, wait until the discussion closes (a consensus reached). Someone uninvolved in the discussion will close it. I would just watch this one happen to get a sense of how it's done. What will probably happen is a copy/paste move will happen, and then an administrator will perform a "history merge," where all the history of one page will be moved to another, because attribution of each edit is required under Wikipedia's license. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

On another note, I'd like to know where to start with improving articles. So far I'm lost with what to do with editing existing articles. SaladH (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , what subject areas interest you? I would stick to a subject matter you are familiar with. Then, head to the relevant wikiproject (for example, I'm knowledgeable in astronomy so I am part of Wikiproject astronomy). If they're an established wikiproject, they should have article assesments. For Wikiproject astronomy (using that example), the article ratings are here. To improve articles, you can expand stubs and "start" class articles. This is the easiest way to have your contributions remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam-2727 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions
Feel free to put any questions you have here! Sam-2727 (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)