Wikipedia:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera

This workshop will take place on April 10th, 2019 in collaboration with Professor Gianni Ciofani. The training will be carried out by Alexmar983 for the doctoral students of the University.

=Outline= The outline of the workshop is as follows:

Wednesday, April 10th
How to write an article, with a correct structure, and references, and with accurate templates, and how to use Wikimedia Commons to illustrate an article. With very minimal exercises
 * 09.15 - 12.30: Introduction to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons


 * 12.30-13.30: lunch break


 * 13:30-16.00: editing with tutors

After the class
Students will be followed on line in the next days.

=How to edit Wikipedia=

The basics
Here is a link to tutorials that can help you edit Wikipedia: Tutorial.


 * Each assertion you type needs to be verifiable. Make sure that you add references to back up statements.


 * Your references need to be secondary sources: original research is not accepted as a reference.


 * Avoid plagiarism. This may includes your own work, unless it is published under a free license allowing for commercial and noncommercial use. Plagiarism amounts to a breach of copyright, which violates Wikipedia policy. If you need to use work you have published under a copyright license, please, reformulate.


 * Neutral point of view. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view. You should represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

A few more useful links

 * Cheatsheet
 * Simplified ruleset
 * WikiProject_Biophysics
 * WikiProject_Biophysics/Assessment

=Useful templates= To be put both directly and between nowiki brackets in order to show the code.

Infoboxes
Some articles require infoboxes. Infoboxes always appear on the right hand side of articles, and have to be placed before the rest of the article's text.

Two examples
Here is the example for human hemoglobin, a protein, on the right hand side is the final result, beneath is the wikicode.

Here is the example for King-Wai Yau, a scientist: final result on the right, wikicode beneath this sentence.

List of science-related infoboxes
For biology :

List_of_infoboxes

For other topics:

List_of_infoboxes

How to cite references
An assertion needs to be backed with a citation. To introduce it in a Wikipedia article, you can rely on the visual editor for most cases (books, websites, articles). In certain cases, you will need to know the wikicode (for citing a thesis, for example). Below is an example of wikicode concerning an article, and further below, the links to the pages explaining how to cite books, websites, and thesis.

Journal articles
To achieve the following note, you can both rely on the visual editor, or use the following wikicode:

Useful external tool:
 * DOI Wikipedia reference generator

How to cite books, webpages, or audiovisual media
Book template here

Website template here

Audiovisual media template here

Biophysics Project
Please post this on the talk pages of biophysics-related articles. WikiProject Biophysics Please post this on the talk pages of robotics-related articles. WikiProject Robotics

Feel free to place this on your user page after joining the project. User WikiProject Biophysics

Other projects
For a full list, see here.
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Materials
 * WikiProject_Organismal_Biomechanics
 * WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology
 * WikiProject_Chemical_and_Bio_Engineering

=Editors willing to help= Students: To contact a helper, here is the link to their talk page:


 * User_talk:Alexmar983

=Participants= Please sign in beneath with your username.
 * --Nicoletta.dileo (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Matteo.battaglini91 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Asorre (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Vindrea (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Francescofontana.santanna (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --LuigiTruppa (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --FedericaBarberi (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --MatteoVissani (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --C.sozer (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Tomact (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Iiirena (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --MichelangeloGuaitolini (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --M.gherardini (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bluace (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Fr.cini (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Stefano Pane (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --Danieledepaiit (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --LauraMorchi (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ilariapacifico (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ChiaraLiv (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --D.DACCOLTI (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

=Groups and assignments=

Lesson

 * Group A: User:Asorre, User:Vindrea
 * improve Cavitation ✅ diff
 * the "Brevia" section of Science is quite descriptive and the article is relevant and cited even in 2019: I just want to be sure about the part "up to 5 times than gravitational acceleration", where it is written there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC) It was corrected.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group B: User:LuigiTruppa, User:Francescofontana.santanna
 * improve Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound ✅ diff
 * the text is solid, some application are recent and cannot be available in review. the overall problem is the insertion, the article is weak, I have to restructure it to get an idea. The influence of the article is also in the lack of wikilinks, I suppose.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC) I removed the last line because there is no review, but the incipt is much better, so your part helped. You should have focued more about the context. On line is similar to the review, ending with the same article citation there, I keep the article together with the review and in any case it's below short citation and consists of a short lists of technical terms.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group C: User:FedericaBarberi, User:MichelangeloGuaitolini
 * improve Sensor fusion ✅ diff
 * it's one of the most rich and complex. I cannot find any review but the quality fo the sources is in line with the rest of the articles. So far no copyviol detected.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC) ok the review used in the text covers part of the other paragraph, I have found a similar phrasing in two short sentences so far. The text seems correct, some rushed passages with the English here and there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group D: User:MatteoVissani
 * improve Deep_brain_stimulation ✅ diff
 * Since it is already removed, I see no point in going further. the text will be redapted for itwikipedia, where an experienced editor who is also a doctor considered it fine. It will be adapted there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group E: User: Ilariapacifico, User: ChiaraLiv
 * improve Powered exoskeleton ✅ diff
 * you used a review from a competent journal in the first quartile of the field of ergonomics. The only similar sentence I can spot is "exposed to physical workload " but it's relatively common for being specific. I cannot find the part of the healthcare costs so far in the review.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group F: User:Fr.cini, User:Tomact, User:Bluace
 * improve Osseointegration	✅ diff
 * the external link is influenced by the NIH one. The insertion is fine, some sentences are similar to the sources but they are very technical, is a rephrasing, even another expert editor confirmed to me by mail it was not easy to change it further. I also removed this one and we can improve it further on itwikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ian Furst decided to fix it. I thank him. I had doubt about the pssible review to add so I was more confident in moving the work on a platforms with another user and discuss it there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group G User:LauraMorchi, User:C.sozer, User:Stefano Pane
 * improve Magnetic levitation ✅ diff
 * the text is correct, the added review does not cover the second part but it's correctly sourced. I think it's line with the rest of the article.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group H: User:Matteo.battaglini91, User:Nicoletta.dileo, User:Danieledepaiit
 * improve Cerium(IV)_oxide ✅ diff
 * It was removed but the reason could apply to many articles that are still there as sources or the one that have been even added later. It's not complicated for you to rewrite for example with this review (mostly a simple replacement) but I am not sure to ask you. You need to interface with users with a consistent approach. We can discuss about it by mail.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group I: User:Iiirena, User:D.DACCOLTI, User:M.gherardini
 * improve Robotic_prosthesis_control ✅ diff
 * the copyviol check so far is fine, it uses only one source and it is a good one, it's not a review but it's line with most of the sources actually used in that article (it's acutally better than some of them).--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Homework

 * Group A: User:Asorre, User:Vindrea
 * improve Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system diff
 * draft User:Asorre/sandbox
 * just one source but it looks correctly written. The source is a dedicated review from the first quartile in its sector. No use of wikilinks--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group B User:LuigiTruppa, User:Francescofontana.santanna
 * improve Inertial measurement unit diff
 * draft User:LuigiTruppa/sandbox
 * the text could be slightly improved but the contest seems correct. I have to double check the original articles, the sources are in the first quartile and one is a review, I have to ask about the last sentence.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC) I think we can remove the part after "sports performance.", it's fine but I cannot find a review.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group C: User:FedericaBarberi, User:MichelangeloGuaitolini
 * improve Prosthesis
 * draft: User:MichelangeloGuaitolini/sandbox
 * not transferred yet, under futher revision by email including a doctor.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC) it was reviewed and it's asolid test but considering your target article classifies Upper-extremity and lower-extremity prothesis while your text does not, I am not asking you to re-think the text in order to transfer it. It's fine this way.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group D: User:MatteoVissani
 * improve Treatment_of_Tourette_syndrome diff
 * draft User:MatteoVissani/sandbox
 * so far this is the only integral copyviol in the class. I am glad that my immediate advice to remove the sandbox was followed.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group E: User:Ilariapacifico, User:ChiaraLiv
 * improve powered exoskeleton
 * draft User:Ilariapacifico/sandbox
 * in the part I have transfered I see no copyviol from google scholar.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group F: User:Fr.cini, User:Tomact, User:Bluace
 * improve Somnolence diff
 * draft User:Tomact/sandbox
 * it is correct, I have downloaded one article that cross references some of the points in the text and a doctor verified it too. Also no trace of copyright violation so far. But I cannot find the source I need to refine it, so we can remove it. We will continue on itwikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group G: User:LauraMorchi, User:C.sozer, User:Stefano Pane
 * improve High-intensity_focused_ultrasound diff
 * draft User:LauraMorchi/sandbox
 * Considering that you are newbie this is quite good. that's why remained there even during an edit war, with one expert user and one user with expertise in the filed both keeping it. You use at least a review and this aspect can be improved, I have started her and there, you can fell it's a good test because fixing it make simpler to improve the rest of the article. You also choose a general concept, which helps. Again, for newbies it's not bad. I found one similar construct in an article but nothing more the rearrangement of two close sentences.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group H: User:Matteo.battaglini91, User:Nicoletta.dileo, User:Danieledepaiit
 * improve Barium_titanate diff
 * draft User:Matteo.battaglini91/sandbox
 * the text is correct, but even if some journals are in the top of the field, you could have used the review already in the article. I didn't spot copyviol so far. But you did use the articles written also by you, although they are very important journals, but I will porbably replace them if I find another review--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC) I have removed the part about application of 2018 and 2019, not in a current review.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Group I User:Iiirena, User:D.DACCOLTI, User:M.gherardini
 * improve Robotic prosthesis control diff diff
 * draft User:D.DACCOLTI/sandbox
 * The first part is good and I see no copyviol, the second part has a source whose title seemed a review but it's not.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons categories

 * Commons:Category:Wikimedia and Outreach acitivity at Polo Valdera April 2019

=Further reading =
 * Wikipedia Editing for Academicians - by Dr. Thomas Shafee
 * Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia - A beginners guide published by PLOS Comp Biol
 * Introduction to editing - a series of 5-10 minute tutorials
 * Getting started - A collection of useful links for new editors

=References=