User talk:Ajpolino/Archives/2024

GA review - need help moving image
Hi - thank you for your review at Talk:Louis Isaac Woolf/GA1, I greatly appreciate the help!

Please could you help me move File:Dr Louis Woolf.png to Wikimedia Commons as it doesn't seem to be working for me.

Thanks again! GnocchiFan (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's now at c:File:Louis I Woolf 1972.jpg. Let me know if you need a hand with anything else. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Beck–Fahrner syndrome
Thank you for the review! I'm seeking additional feedback on ways to further improve the article. I want to work on the article to get it to FA-Class eventually. How specifically would you say I should approach this? I don't think there is much more I can add to the article without making it overdetailed. Strange Orange (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Strange Orange, I'm glad to hear you're interested in the FA process. Bringing an article through FAC can be very rewarding, and engaging with the FA process is a nice way to hone your writing/editing skills. A couple of years ago, SandyGeorgia (who introduced me to the FA process, and helped usher me through my first FAC) wrote this essay on the topic. Perhaps you'll find some useful perspective there.
 * Now for a slightly pessimistic take. For better or for worse, I think not every topic is well suited to FAC. For "niche" topics that haven't attracted much scholarly interest, it's challenging to generate enough well-sourced material to satisfy FAC reviewers that you've met the "comprehensive" criterion. In an effort to get comprehensive, you may need to pull from less-than-ideal sources, which reviewers may take issue with you relying on. You can see an example of this at Trisomy X and its FAC. put an incredible amount of work into building a great article – no doubt the most comprehensive resource on the topic – but faced reviewer skepticism based on the tension above.
 * If your personal interests are broader than BF syndrome, I might suggest starting by bringing an "easier" article through FAC, perhaps a genetic disorder that's common enough to have attracted more copious source material? If not, I certainly understand that; we should all write about what we're interested in here. If you'd still like to take a crack at bringing BF syndrome through FAC, let me know and I'm happy to do my best to give useful feedback and connect you with folks who will help you in your efforts. If you pick another article for your first FAC, ditto the above. Either way, best of luck in your efforts. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

RE: Prohibition of links in infoboxes
Just a clarification, are you also opposed to the links that go to related articles in Prostate Cancer? Those would essentially be a violation of INFOBOXPURPOSE based on the same reasoning that's been outlined in the INFOBOXPURPOSE discussion. I just limited the question to biographies since that's where the dispute originated. You cited Nikkimaria who says linking to section is the same thing as linking to a related article, so that's why I wanted to clarify. INFOBOXPURPOSE isn't limited to biographies, if these links are prohibited it would likely affect all infoboxes. Thanks for your feedback! Nemov (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your point. If there are links in the prostate cancer infobox that go to a subsection of the article, that's unintentional. I'll check later when I have a moment. The infobox of that article summarizes the major points of the article. It has wikilinks only to give the reader quick access to articles on terms they may wish to learn more about. It would stand just fine without those wikilinks. The Beethoven example at that discussion has works List of compositions. That would be like if the prostate cancer infobox had symptoms List of symptoms. It's silly whether that link points to a subsection of the article, or to a separate article. Nikkimaria merely pointed out that those two cases (subsection vs. separate article) shouldn't be treated differently. Am I addressing your concern? Ajpolino (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The question isn't about linking to a subsection of an article. It's about liking to a related article from the infobox. I could have just easily used the infobox from the prostate cancer article as an example of an infobox that links to another articles. Maybe I should remove the Beethoven example if it's confusing the question. Nemov (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you're conflating the positions "infoboxes should not link to lists of works" with "infoboxes should not contain wikilinks". I think infoboxes should summarize the article they're at the top of. Saying Beethoven's works are "List of compositions" is not a summary. Saying he died in "Vienna" is perfectly fine with me. Ajpolino (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not conflating, I just don't understand how awards/works/family go against the spirit INFOBOXPURPOSE. Thanks so much for your time responding to my silly questions. I greatly appreciate it. Nemov (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As you wish. symptoms List of symptoms is silly. Your questions are, of course, welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dracunculiasis
The article Dracunculiasis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dracunculiasis for comments about the article, and Talk:Dracunculiasis/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prostate cancer
The article Prostate cancer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prostate cancer for comments about the article, and Talk:Prostate cancer/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Femke -- Femke (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism
Your edit on the page Breast cancer is vandalistic. Please refrain from making edits of similar nature. Thank you. Fenharrow (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, you're mistaken. I'm updating the article breast cancer. That sometimes involves trimming old and WP:UNDUE material, in addition to adding new material with new references. I've been a regular editor of medical articles here for many years now, and have recently been working on various cancer articles: I overhauled lung cancer last year, and prostate cancer is currently at WP:FAC. Those are the cancers that cause the first and second most deaths in the world; breast cancer is third, so it's up next on my list. Perhaps you'd like to revert your edit, or check those other articles for vandalism as well? Ajpolino (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Apologies. Happy editing, Ajpolino! :) Fenharrow (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. I understand large loss of text can look concerning. Thank you for your quick reply. Ajpolino (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If time allows ...
Hi there :). You may have noticed we're preparing ME/CFS for FAC. It's definitely not as polished as your pre-GAN prostate cancer, and I've never brought anything medical to FAC, so I might be off-kilter in places. If time allows, I would be much obliged if you could leave some feedback :). (Of course, the invitation is also open to talk page watchers). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be happy to. Glad to see another medical article getting spruced up. I'll try to find time this weekend. I don't know much about ME/CFS (fortunate I haven't had to learn, I suppose) so I'm looking forward to the read. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

SFN/Harvard error in Breast Cancer
Hello, @Ajpolino. A recent contribution to Breast Cancer has lead to a sfn/harv error due to the source not being in the bibliography. You had put "sfn|Hayes|Lippman|2023|loc="Inherited germline susceptibility factors", did you prehaps mean for the date to be 2022? Thank you, Thecowboygilbert  -  (talk) ♥  13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yep, exactly that. Just fixed it. Thanks for catching my mistake. Ajpolino (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Prostate cancer
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)