User talk:Likelihoodist

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * I got your message, feel free to let me know if you need any help.--Mishae (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Using material that is not copyrighted in a Wikipage
Anastasia

Thanks for the badge.

Suppose that a non-Wikipedia web page is not copyrighted and is written under a Creative Commons license. In addition, suppose that a submitted Wikipedia page describes some software that is also described in this non-Wikipedia page. Is it acceptable for the Wikipedia page to use text obtained from this non-Wikipedia page in describing this software?

Likelihoodist (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can use this text as a source. It is not generally a good practice to copy material from other websites, copyrighted or not, and paste it on to Wikipedia. You can quote websites (even if the're copyrighted) but not copy text. Does that make sense? Just curious, what is the website you want copy material from? Also, heads up: when you post on people's talk pages, put your post on the bottom of the page :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anastasia

The website is http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/Main/PowerSampleSize, which I created to distribute our PS power and sample size calculation program. I have submitted a page for publication on Wikipedia that describes this page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Likelihoodist/sandbox). I would be most interested in your thoughts about the suitability of this page and any suggestions that you may have as to how it can be improved.

Likelihoodist (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anastasia

For your information I have edited my submitted web page to avoid any copying of material from anywhere. Thank you for your advice.

Likelihoodist (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I read the article you submitted and I think it is very well done and should pass the review :)
 * Great job finding sources and with the layout! A very interesting addition to Wikipedia. One thing to remember (not sure if you know this): when you submit an article and it is accepted to Wikipedia, it is no longer "yours" to claim. Others can edit it freely as they choose. Thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anastasia

Many thanks for your kind and reassuring words. (I hope you are correct.) I do indeed understand the transfer of ownership upon acceptance by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a bran new world for me. I am familiar with academic publishing where one looses ownership in the sense that copyright is transferred to the publisher. However, in these publications the final wording, after the usual battles with editors and referees, is locked in stone. I realize that Wikipedia pages are much more fluid. Clearly, however, the process works. I am amazed at the quality and breadth of Wikipedia articles, and use them extensively in my day-to-day work. One of the challenges of being a biostatistician is that I am continually thrust into new areas of biology and medicine about which I have limited knowledge. Wikipedia has become my first choice in obtaining an introduction to these topics. I am most grateful to you and the thousands of other Wikipedia editors for making Wikipedia such an incredibly valuable resource.

One final question, I would like my page refereed by someone who is knowledgeable about power calculations. I have indicated this preference in the talk page that is linked to my sandbox. Is there some sort of Wikipedia tag or other device that I should use in my page to indicate this preference?

Best wishes,

Bill Likelihoodist (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, not sure about that one. It's not really my forte to create a lot of articles, so I've never needed something like that. A good place to ask would be the Reference desk, they might know. ~ Anastasia (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability of the PS power and sample size program
Dear Wikipedia Editors:

This talk section is linked to a Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation web page describing the PS program, which I submit for publication on Wikipedia. I request that this page be refereed by a biostatistician or statistician.

The notability of this program is documented in this page. I hope that you will also consider three additional pieces of evidence, which I have not included in this submission as either you instructions advise against it or I was unable to find similar evidence used in other Wikipedia pages.

1. The PS webpage has been at or near the top of Goggle searches in response to "Power and Sample Size" for the past decade. On August 29, 2013 it was the first hit in response to this search. In contrast, the PASS sample size software, which is sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia page, was the 18th hit in response to this search on this date. I would argue that the standing of the PS program given by the Page-rank algorithm is evidence of its notability.

2. Google Analytics reports that there were 74,367 visits to our web page between September 6, 2012 and September 6, 3013. (See copy of the Google Analytics web page. Please let me know if you would like to see the original page and I will try to figure out a way for you to do this.) I am unable to document the number of program downloads during this time, but the primary purpose of visiting the page is to download the software. In any event, this volume of visits is an indicator of notability.

3. The original peer-reviewed paper that describes the PS program is Dupont and Plummer: Controlled Clinical Trials 1990; 11:116-28. The program's documentation lists this paper as a suggested citation. According to the Web of Science (see also), this paper has been cited 722 times in the literature. I would submit that this is evidence that the program is being extensively used and hence is notable.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Sincerely,

Likelihoodist (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: PS Power and Sample Size (October 1)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at PS&.
 * 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 [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for feedback from DrMicro
Hello DrMicro

I am contacting you in the hopes that you can give me feedback and advice on a page, PS Power and Sample Size, that I submitted for publication on Wikipedia. I am writing to you because of your contributions to the sample size determination page.

My PS page was rejected a few weeks ago by Hasteur. The only feedback that he gave me for this rejection was the comment "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." My response to Hasteur is given below. To date, I have received no reply. I would be most grateful if you could look briefly at the PS page and my response to Hasteur below and let me know if you think my submission met the Wikipedia criteria for notability, and if so whether there is any way that I can either fix this page or appeal this decision.

Best wishes,

Likelihoodist (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * I have looked at the page. I would agree with Hasteur - this page has problems. Serious problems. On the other hand the programme is probably worth a mention. It is just that page needs a LOT of editing. I will have a look at it as soon as I can find the time. DrMicro (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to DrMicro

 * Hello DrMicro
 * Many thanks for your prompt response. I will be happy to follow your guidance concerning editing the PS page. I look forward to receiving any suggestions that you are willing to give me.

Likelihoodist (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of Article on PS Power and Sample Size
Hello Hasteur:

I would be most grateful if you could provide me with more guidance as to how I can fix my PS submission. First, is the only issue notability or do you have other concerns? With regard to notability, I would hope that the following points are relevant.


 * 1) The program has been described in two peer-reviewed publications (references 1 and 2 in my submission).  (Originally the program was called POWER, but I changed it to PS after being threatened by a lawyer who claimed that he represented some company that had a trade mark on POWER.) The program's documentation lists these papers as suggested citations. According to the Web of Science (see also), reference 1 has been cited 722 times in the literature. These citations are like the tip of an iceberg in that most power calculations do not lead to peer-reviewed publications and many publications do not reference the software used for these calculations. I would submit that these citations are evidence that the program is being extensively used and hence is notable.
 * 2) The program has been reviewed in three peer-reviewed publications (references 10-12 in my submission).    In addition Pezzullo (reference 13  in my submission) reviews this software on his web site. This site, has reviewed free statistical software for over a decade.  Evidence of its popularity and importance is that it was the first non-commercial hit in a Google search for “free statistical software” run on Oct 1, 2013.  Also, the Wikipedia entry Free statistical software cites Pezzullo's web page. Thus, although this site is not a peer-reviewed publication, it is a credible source of evidence of the notability of the PS program.
 * 3) Some of the external links also have bearing on the program’s notability. P3G is a not-for-profit international consortium dedicated to facilitating collaboration between researchers and biobanks working in the area of human population genomics. The fact that this URL has a subpage for the PS program that provides our URL is a marker of notability.  This is not a group that I could influence in any way.  Similarly, the fact that our program is linked by  CTSpedia (a knowledge base for clinical and translational research) and a web site run by the Division of Biostatistics at the Univ. of California, San Francisco  provides additional evidence of notability.
 * 4) The PS webpage has been at or near the top of Goggle searches in response to "Power and Sample Size" for the past decade. On October 1, 2013 it was the first non-commercial hit in response to this search. In contrast, the PASS sample size software, which is sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia page, was the 4th hit in response to this search on this date. I would argue that the standing of the PS program given by the Page-rank algorithm is evidence of its notability. It is particularly unclear to me why the PASS program is sufficiently notable to have its own Wikipedia page while the PS program is not. The Wikipedia page for the PASS program contains no evidence of notability whatsoever.
 * 5) Google Analytics reports that there were 74,367 visits to our web page between September 6, 2012 and September 6, 3013. (See copy of the Google Analytics web page. Please let me know if you would like to see the original page and I will try to figure out a way for you to do this.) I am unable to document the number of program downloads during this time, but the primary purpose of visiting the page is to download the software. In any event, this volume of visits is an indicator of notability.
 * 6) Power and sample size calculations are just one of many important issues in modern statistics. As a consequence, review articles on software for these calculations are fairly rare.  The fact that three such papers discuss the PS program goes a long way, I would have thought, to documenting the notability of this program.
 * 7) Power and sample-size calculations are of interest to only a small minority of all Wikipedia users.  However, this is an important topic for scientists who need to design studies where a compromise must be made between cost and the protection of human subjects on the one hand and the need to find convincing evidence in favor of important hypotheses on the other. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it is full of articles on topics that are of great importance to only a few readers (the countless pages on specialized topics in molecular biology are examples). I would have thought that the PS program meets the notability criteria within the admittedly specialized world of academic statistics and medical research.

In any event, I would deeply appreciate any further explanation that you can give me as to why the PS submission is not acceptable for publication on Wikipedia at this time. I would also be most grateful for any advice as to what I need to do to increase your confidence in the references that I provided with my submission.

Sincerely,

Likelihoodist (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to DragonflySixtyseven
Hello DragonflySixtyseven:

Yesterday I received an email saying that "User:Likelihoodist was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven." but I could not find any input from you.

I would be most grateful if you could give me some feedback on a page that I recently submitted to Wikipedia. This page, PS Power and Sample Size was rejected by Hasteur on October 1, 2013. He/she wrote "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." I left him the message given immediately above this one asking him for additional guidance and summarizing the evidence concerning the notability of this page. Unfortunately, he has not responded to date. Would you be willing to look briefly at this submission, and my response to Hasteur? Power calculations are of great interest to an admittedly specialized audience. However, Wikipedia does publish a great deal on information on topics that are only of critical interest to specialized experts. I would be deeply indebted to you if you could provide me with some insight into the degree of notability required of such pages for publication in your encyclopedia.

Sincerely

Likelihoodist (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Resubmission of the PS Power and Sample Size Page
Hello Hasteur:

I have edited and resubmitted the PS Power and Sample Size in response to your directions "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." I would be most grateful if you would let me know whether these edits satisfactorily address your concerns.

Best wishes,

Likelihoodist (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC PS Power and Sample Size was accepted
 PS Power and Sample Size, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * Just having a look at the above volley of discussions: I'm sorry that you had a harsh time of it submitting your article via articles for creation—or "the crap pile" as I informally refer to it. There's a lot of really terrible articles that gets submitted via AfC and so editors often aren't wild about ploughing through it. The backlog is enormous and so reasonable articles can get lost amongst the never ending parade of junk. Thanks again for writing the article and sorry if the process was rather slow and dispiriting. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for publishing my PS web page (and a question)
Hello Tom:

Many thanks. The delay was largely my fault. I initially interpreted Hasteur's rejection sentence "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." as meaning that he was not confident that my references documented sufficient notability for the PS program. It was unclear to me how I could fix this so I put my page aside and went on to other labors. It was only months later when I reread his sentence that I realized that he might be only asking for a minor edit related to my having cited nine references at one time. This was trivial to fix, but by this time, Hasteur was working on other pages. He, like yourself and the thousands of other Wikipedia editors donate extraordinary amounts of time to Wikipedia and it is not surprising that his response was terse. But I guess what he intended as a conditional acceptance, I interpreted as a flat rejection.

Currently, Wikipedia has a page on statistical power and a page on sample size calculations. Neither of these pages say anything about software for making these calculations. The PS and PASS pages describe such software but are orphans. Would it make sense for me to add a new page on power and sample size calculation software? This page would link to the PASS and PS pages and would also briefly describe the other most popular commercial and free programs that are available. The sample size and power calculation pages would both be linked to this new software page. Do you think that such an addition might be well received by the Wikipedia editors? Would you recommend that I just go ahead and do this or should I submit same as another contribution for review by the Wikipedia editors?

With best wishes for 2014

Bill Dupont Likelihoodist (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend the best solution might be to add a small section to the articles in question pointing to the software, rather than creating an intermediate page. I'd recommend you just go ahead and edit the pages directly (Wikipedia encourages boldness). If you want me to have a look at your edits after you've done them, just drop me a note on my talk page and I'll have a look (although I'm not an expert on mathematics or statistics, so I can't give feedback on that side of things). I'm away for a few days, but am certainly happy to have a look on my return.
 * Thanks again for your contribution. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool! Thanks. I would certainly appreciate your edits.  I'm OK with the math and stats, but the Wikipedia culture is still new to me. (It may be a week or two before I can find the time to do this.)

Likelihoodist (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for edits by Tom Morris
Tom

Please take a look at my edits to the Statistical power and Sample size determination pages. My intent in writing this paragraph for the Statistical Power page was to remove the orphan status of the PASS and PS pages and to provide a brief description of software that is highly ranked by Google searches for "power and sample size." Since I last looked, there are now external software links that have been added to these pages. Some of these links are not included in my paragraph, as I wanted to get some feed back from you and other editors before making further edits. Any edits that you would care to make to my paragraph would be much appreciated. I would certainly be willing to make this paragraph much shorter (giving little except links to the PS and PASS pages) if you think that that would improve the overall value of these Wikipedia pages.

Best wishes,

Likelihoodist (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * All looks good to me! —Tom Morris (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Odds ratio for a matched case-control study (November 5)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Odds ratio for a matched case-control study and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Odds_ratio_for_a_matched_case-control_study Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiOriginal-9&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Odds_ratio_for_a_matched_case-control_study reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be most grateful if you could clarify the reasons for your rejecting my article as well as suggestions as to how my entry can be improved. Please see the questions written below.
 * Your stated reasons in your original rejections are as follows:
 * 1.     Does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.
 * Odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a standard topic in epidemiologic statistics. As such, I would think that this would make my article notable. This topic is covered in many textbooks on epidemiology. This includes Gordis Epidemiology (ref 1 on my submitted page) which is a standard text that is widely used for teaching elementary epidemiology. Perhaps I should also have referenced Rothman et al.’s Modern Epidemiology (See reference 15 in the Wikipedia article entitled “Odds ratio”). Rothman is a renowned American epidemiologist (see the Wikipedia article entitled “Kenneth Rothman (epidemiologist)” Their text, which covers this topic, is arguably the most authoritative text on advanced epidemiology available today.
 * Wikipedia does have an article on Odds ratios, which covers odds ratios for independent case-control studies but does not mention odds ratios for matched studies. It also has an article entitled “McNemar’s test”, which describes a test of the association between two dichotomous variables in a matched study. This test is also used to test the hypothesis that the odds ratio from a matched case-control study equals one. However, this page does not mention odds ratios or give the maximum likelihood estimate for this statistic from these studies. The lack of any entry on odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a notable omission from Wikipedia that I believe should be filled.
 * Should I cite Rothman et al.? Do I need to reference additional text books on this topic? If so, how many? Do I need to reference additional peer-reviewed papers that use this method? If so, how many?  Is there some other type of reference that I should add.
 * 2.     In-depth entry
 * Celentano et al. (ref 1 on my submitted page), Rothman et al. and Breslow and Day all cover this topic in detail. Celentano et al. discuss calculating odds ratios from a matched-pairs case-control study on pages 251–253 and 290 – 291. They do not give a proof as to why this odds ratio estimate is correct.  Rothman et al. cover this topic on pages 287 – 288 and reference Breslow and Day 1980 (ref 2 on my  submitted page). Breslow and Day provide the derivation of the odds ratio from matched 2x2 tables that is given in my article. I don’t see how this topic can be covered in greater depth by these authors.
 * Should I clarify that the derivation that I give in my article is due to Breslow and Day and not a proof that I thought of myself?
 * 3.     Reliable sources
 * The references that are given in my article are authoritative. As mentioned in his Wikipedia web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rothman_(epidemiologist), Rothman is a professor of epidemiology at Boston University and a distinguished Fellow at RTI International. The fact that his text is cited by Wikipedia’s “Odds ratio” page speaks to the reliability of his textbook. (His coauthor Sander Greenland is also one of the world’s leading epidemiologists. See the Wikipedia page entitled “Sander Greenland”. N.E. Breslow and N.E. Day were/are renowned 20th century biostatisticians. See their Wikipedia pages entitled “Norman Breslow” and “Nick Day (statistician)”. Leon Gordis was a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In short, the references on odds ratios from matched case-control studies could not be more reliable.
 * Do you have any concerns as to whether these authors are reliable?
 * 4.     Secondary source
 * I’m not sure how this criteria applies to a statistical methods page. I do reference the paper by McEvoy et al. that provides an interesting application of this method.
 * What type of additional references would be considered an appropriate secondary source?
 * 5.     Independent sources
 * All of my references are independent from me. My name is Bill Dupont (see https://www.vumc.org/biostatistics/person/william-d-dupont ). I am not a personal friend of any of the authors cited in my article or given above. Also, I am not a co-author of any paper written with these scholars.
 * In summary I am puzzled as to why you rejected my article. It appears to meet the criteria for publication in Wikipedia and would be a worthwhile contribution to the pages that have already been published on epidemiologic methods. I would be most grateful for any advice that you can give me as to how to improve my article to make it suitable for publication in Wikipedia.
 * Thank you for reading the above an considering the questions that I have asked. Likelihoodist (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Likelihoodist -- I don't have the expertise to assess the notability of this topic, but is there a reason you are using the Articles for Creation service? It's optional for editors with a moderate amount of experience who are not directly connected to the topic. The reviewers are generalists and it's extremely unlikely you will find anyone who can assist with this kind of technical material. ETA To address your questions, generally two or three reliable independent sources with significant coverage is ok. Academic books, university-level textbooks, review-type journal articles are all ideal, as long as they are not written by the originator of the concept. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. There is no particular reason why I am using the Articles for Creation service. I thought that I was just submitting a conventional Wikipedia article in the appropriate way. Your guidance as to which service I should use (and how to use it) would be greatly appreciated.
 * It would be really helpful if I could have my article reviewed by a someone who is familiar with epidemiologic statistics. (I do not know if my current reviewer has this expertise.) Is there some other way that I should submit my article? Is there any way that I can request a reviewer who is familiar with the topic that I am discussing? Likelihoodist (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that the system is working so poorly in this case. Articles for Creation, in my opinion, is not good at handling technical topics; reviewers get offered a random article to process rather than articles selected by topic. You could request a reviewer from a relevant Wikiproject, but beware a lot of them are now inactive. WP:Wikiproject Medicine is active but I'm less familiar with the mathematics projects; WP:WikiProject Statistics looks inactive but WP:WikiProject Mathematics is active. Just drop a note on their talk page and briefly explain the problems you have been having (editors are always overcommitted; longer comments tend to get less attention).
 * As an autoconfirmed editor, there's nothing stopping you from creating articles in mainspace or moving articles into mainspace yourself, and generally I recommend this for any specialised or technical topic, although the new-page patrollers are also non-specialists and can be poor at handling technical topics. In the longer term, once you are more familiar with the encyclopedia's processes, perhaps you would consider reviewing relevant drafts yourself? (The editor who was doing most of this work, David Goodman, died earlier this year.)
 * I hope this is helpful, and again apologies that you are having such difficulties contributing valuable content. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your advice is really helpful and greatly appreciated. I think I will try approaching Wikiproject Medicine as I would guess that some of these editors are epidemiologists. On reflection, I do feel that I should have referenced Rothman et al. and mentioned a different approach to deriving the odds ratio that they provide.
 * I had forgotten that I was an autoconfirmed editor. Going ahead and posting my article is also a tempting option.
 * Enjoy your coffee and best wishes, Likelihoodist (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, I decided that I did not want to argue with reviewers who were not necessarily either statisticians or epidemiologists. Instead, I submitted my entry as an addition to the Wikipedia odds ratio article. I did this on Nov 30, and my entry has not been edited since then. I infer that this means that whoever monitors the odds ratio article is ok with what I have done. This gets my contribution into Wikipedia.
 * What is mildly unfortunate is that it is unlikely to be found by Google, and hence will be harder to find by people who are looking specifically for odds ratios from matched case-control studies. It also makes the odds ratio article longer than, is perhaps, ideal.
 * With best wishes for the holidays. Likelihoodist (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be really helpful if I could have my article reviewed by a someone who is familiar with epidemiologic statistics. (I do not know if my current reviewer has this expertise.) Is there some other way that I should submit my article? Is there any way that I can request a reviewer who is familiar with the topic that I am discussing? Likelihoodist (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that the system is working so poorly in this case. Articles for Creation, in my opinion, is not good at handling technical topics; reviewers get offered a random article to process rather than articles selected by topic. You could request a reviewer from a relevant Wikiproject, but beware a lot of them are now inactive. WP:Wikiproject Medicine is active but I'm less familiar with the mathematics projects; WP:WikiProject Statistics looks inactive but WP:WikiProject Mathematics is active. Just drop a note on their talk page and briefly explain the problems you have been having (editors are always overcommitted; longer comments tend to get less attention).
 * As an autoconfirmed editor, there's nothing stopping you from creating articles in mainspace or moving articles into mainspace yourself, and generally I recommend this for any specialised or technical topic, although the new-page patrollers are also non-specialists and can be poor at handling technical topics. In the longer term, once you are more familiar with the encyclopedia's processes, perhaps you would consider reviewing relevant drafts yourself? (The editor who was doing most of this work, David Goodman, died earlier this year.)
 * I hope this is helpful, and again apologies that you are having such difficulties contributing valuable content. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your advice is really helpful and greatly appreciated. I think I will try approaching Wikiproject Medicine as I would guess that some of these editors are epidemiologists. On reflection, I do feel that I should have referenced Rothman et al. and mentioned a different approach to deriving the odds ratio that they provide.
 * I had forgotten that I was an autoconfirmed editor. Going ahead and posting my article is also a tempting option.
 * Enjoy your coffee and best wishes, Likelihoodist (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, I decided that I did not want to argue with reviewers who were not necessarily either statisticians or epidemiologists. Instead, I submitted my entry as an addition to the Wikipedia odds ratio article. I did this on Nov 30, and my entry has not been edited since then. I infer that this means that whoever monitors the odds ratio article is ok with what I have done. This gets my contribution into Wikipedia.
 * What is mildly unfortunate is that it is unlikely to be found by Google, and hence will be harder to find by people who are looking specifically for odds ratios from matched case-control studies. It also makes the odds ratio article longer than, is perhaps, ideal.
 * With best wishes for the holidays. Likelihoodist (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Odds ratio for a matched case-control study
Hello, Likelihoodist. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Odds ratio for a matched case-control study, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)