Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 April 13

= April 13 =

14:27:59, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Fagun99i
Emu Desai is 75 years old and he is notable according to me as I am from the Same City and State. Unfortunately local media is having many reports but they are not archived on internet. My page was declined. Could you please help me how can I get the approval for this Page? In meantime, I am in search of more online/offline references. Fagun99i (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

16:11:51, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Jeanettenj11
I am not sure why my submission was declined. I included a number of references from major publications that confirm the notability of the subject. Please let me know if I referenced the article incorrectly, or if I need to include even more references to establish notability. Many thanks! Jeanette

Jeanettenj11 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

16:46:36, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Sethgodin
Thanks for the quick response. Notability was confirmed by the editor, but he objected to peacock language in first paragraph (sorry, I was trying to make it clear to the reader what the context for this person was.) It's now removed, and I feel like the bio is solid.

Can you please let me know what else needs to be fixed?

Thanks!

Seth

Sethgodin (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, 's concern about the inadequacy of the Creative Computing citation has not been addressed. There have been multiple publications by that name. Although the issue/volume/page/date may uniquely identify it, that information isn't always available through catalogs. It may not be until one has the December 1983 issue in hand that one can tell whether it's volume 9 issue 12 or mentions the subject on page 14. Publisher and place of publication would be a more practical disambiguation. Author, title, and the relevant quote would be helpful.


 * The draft is inconsistent, should the name be hyphenated or not? The photo will be deleted in 3 days in the absence of required licensing information. There are some problems with sourcing and relevance/clarity, as noted on the draft. The lead is inadequate. Linking and sufficient context are uneven. As explained on the draft, I'm unconvinced that Sackner-Bernstein is the correct primary topic. Even if he is, the draft seems to miss the point of the story. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Thank you for taking the time. The Creative Computing cite was easy to fix, I added a link to the issue online. The hyphenation was indeed confusing, my apologies, that's been fixed as well. A new photo will be uploaded today.


 * I hear your points about the lead, but finding the right balance here is quite difficult, apparently. The first reviewer said that emphasizing why JSB was notable in the lead was peacocking. I've done my best to cogently summarize the essence of the notability in a single sentence.


 * The Wikipedia standard for notability Notability states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.


 * In addition, two other principles are important: Notability is not temporary and notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.


 * In the case of Sackner Bernstein, I trust we can agree that the coverage of his work (80 papers, a well-reviewed book in the book publishing trade journal Publishers Weekly, references in the New York Times) is significant, independent and reliable.


 * Just as important is the fact of the arc of his career. Over more than 30 years, his work has been covered, moving from medicine to engineering to the FDA to scientific research. If this work had been done by 84 different people, it would be different. Connecting the dots requires no original research at all, but provides the person who finds this page (via another article or a web search) with the context that an encyclopedia provides.


 * Given the notability, then, the question is whether the article is too defective to be shared and improved across the community.


 * And that’s where I’m hoping you can offer help. I’ve looked at many articles, and I’m not sure I’m seeing the fundamental error here. If you can say, “fix this link and we’re set,” or even better, adjust what needs to be adjusted, that would be fabulous.


 * I respect the work you and the other wikipedians are doing to upgrade and maintain the quality of the bio corpus, but it can feel like an endlessly moving target. I hope we can agree that the notability of this researcher and his work cannot be seriously called into question. The question, then, I hope, is can the article be improved over time in the way all great Wikipedia articles are. I'd appreciate a look at the revised article.


 * Thanks.
 * Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgodin (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fixes you've made. Writing a good lead is difficult. warned against editorializing, such as describing JSB's research as "noted" without attributing that opinion of JSB's work. I don't believe he meant that the research shouldn't be emphasized in the lead.


 * There is nothing in your reply that did not already factor into my evaluation of the draft. You refer to Notability. In the lead of that guideline you'll find the sentence " [Notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." I believe the encyclopedic topic in this case is Nesiritide. My advice is to use the sources you've identified to improve that article rather than to create this biography. If you want a simple answer, then do that, and in your words "we're set." I understand that you may not want to do that. I have not declined the draft, and Wikipedia will not collapse if you pursue the biogaphy despite my advice. Other reviewers may reach different conclusions. You may wish to solicit advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology. The consensus-driven nature of Wikipedia feels strange if one is accustomed to a top-down structure. Somehow, it works. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

17:16:15, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Emmayj2
We have since added several outside sources as requested by our initial review. The second reviewer appears to have turned us down for the same reason. I added the additional sources in the History section. I am wondering if they were not noticed - perhaps I put them in the wrong place? Would greatly appreciate any assitance. Emmayj2 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:27:16, 13 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lawrence Theo
Lawrence Theo (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

18:41:14, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Lawrence Theo
Fix my name and search box.

Request on 18:58:42, 13 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Avery.brister
My reviewer said to reformat my references because they were listed twice but I have no clue how to do that. Creating the article as it is right now was difficult enough to me. This is a school assignment so I have to get my article approved.

Avery.brister (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Avery.brister, I'm afraid your draft can never be accepted because we already have an article about the topic at Tinman gene. If your topic was assigned to you please inform your professor that when a topic already exists it prevents the creation of a new article, only the existing article can be improved. (BTW this is the second draft submission about this gene that I have seen in less than a day.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)