User talk:Claireraison

Your submission at Articles for creation: Expert Review of Proteomics (March 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC) == Your submission at Articles for creation: Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics (March 6) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

advice
I'm one of the administrators here who works rathe frequently on articles about academic journals. Looking at the article, the actual problem is not sourcing, but that most of it is copied from the journal article. (As far as sourcing goes, the reference to the journals home page at its official site and to JCR is sufficient)

Our standard of notability for a journal is that it be regularly published, come from a recognized academic publisher, be of significant importance in its field, and that it be included in major selective indexes. For a journal in science or social science, the only sure way of meeting that test is for the journal to be in Journal Citation Reports or anywhere in the ISI citation indexes, and it helps to be in Scopus, but Scopus is re considered less selective. Include other major indexes also. See [[Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)[[ for the rules. It's marked as a n essay, but its the usual practice. Do not include minor ones. No not include content aggregators like Ebsco or OCLC.

Based on what is generally accepted here, an article about a journal should also  contain:
 * 1) Full titles, any earlier titles, and the corresponding dates. Make cross references from any variant titles.
 * 2) Standard abbreviations used--make redirects from them.
 * 3) publishing & sponsoring body, as well as earlier publishers & sponsors
 * 4) availability on line
 * 5) no. of articles published a year
 * 6) ISSNs for both print and online versions
 * 7) Online availability of current and earlier issues
 * 8) Open access availability, if relevant.
 * 9) Circulation (sourced somewhere--default place to get it is Ulrichs)
 * 10) coverage in major standard indexes, including particularly Scopus and Web of Science (Science Citation Index)
 * 11) latest year's impact factor if available, and rank in the JCR subject field(s). Include the year so it can be updated.
 * 12) any actual references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.
 * 13) a list of the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Web of Science.
 * 14) External links to the journal's main web site, and, if relevant, the main website of the sponsoring body.
 * 15) The name and affiliation of the editor in chief, and all previous editor-in chief, with dates. ; since being the editor of a major journal is considered notable, an article can also be written about them. But we do not include other staff, or the editorial board.

It should not contain
 * 1) General information listing all the fields covered, unless it is not obvious from the title
 * 2) Statements of praise for the journal -- see WP:PEACOCK
 * 3) A list of those on the editorial board
 * 4) names of the staff, except editors in chief; subordinate or section editors should not usually be listed.
 * 5) Information about subscription prices
 * 6) Information about how to submit articles
 * 7) Links to the publisher's general website, or to subpages within the journal's site.
 * and, most important, it must contain no text from the web page description of the journal. That is a copyright violation, and needs to be rewritten. Even if you are prepared to donate copyright according to WP:DCM, it is likely to be unsuitably promotional.

Please read  our FAQ  about  organisations, and articles like this, and for more specific information our  WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. As it specifies there, the best way to start is by using   the infobox journal template; but also convert the information there  to prose.

Please let me know on my talk page when you are ready for a re-review.  DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Expert Review of Proteomics concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Expert Review of Proteomics, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics


Hello Claireraison. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Expert Review of Proteomics


Hello Claireraison. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Expert Review of Proteomics".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)