Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 August 8

= August 8 =

02:50:11, 8 August 2018 review of submission by Zhaofeng-shu33
User:Catrìona said "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide". I am confused and do not know how to revise this article. Zhaofeng-shu33 (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Participants of WikiProjects Computer science, Mathematics, and/or Statistics will probably make revisions. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

11:56:00, 8 August 2018 review of submission by Wareed Alenaini
Dear, I need help for editing this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Sagner. it has been rejected for not using reliable resources although I made sure that I included only reliable resources. Could you please assist me where it went wrong and how to fix it for publishing? thank you very much

Wareed Alenaini (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

16:36:59, 8 August 2018 review of submission by Katerina.gurova
I wrote an article about "curaxins", compounds which we discovered several years ago and cited multiple peer-reviewed publications. The article was declined because it sounds as advertisement. It was said that information should be supported by independent reliable published sources. I mentioned my name once in the section about the discovery of curaxins. If this is considered as advertisement - I can remove this. I also wonder why reputable high visibility peer reviewed journal are not considered as reliable sources. May be the problem is in the word - independent? Was it meant that I should not cite my own research? Then it is a logical trap. Nobody can write anything about the matter, which he or she discovered in this case. But who can better do this than original inventor? Does it mean I need to ask somebody else to write about curaxins? Or we need to wait for another 10-15 years for somebody else to write this article, when curaxins will be used and well-known in the clinic. But why? Katerina.gurova (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi publications by the discoverers/inventors are primary sources, which should be used only sparingly and cannot, by definition, demonstrate the notability of the subject. The bulk of any article must be based on secondary sources, in this case that would be articles by researchers working independently of the original group, review articles are of the best sources for scientific subjects. So, to answer your question directly, no we do not need to wait until the compounds are in clinical use, but there must at least be secondary sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)