Jump to content

Talk:Michael F. Holick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion

[edit]
Collapsing deletion comments

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Matthias3110 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Holick contributed significantly in the field of vitamin D research, identified and isolated major forms of vitamin D and developed new therapies. He belongs to the most successfull researches in the field of vitamin D - why your criticism?

Is it a problem that I was referring to his bibliography? Is the reference to the books a problem? If yes, that can be removed. But the references to his scientific contributions is a review of his scientific oevre.

What precisely would you like to have changed?

PS: there are not many articles around that reference and cite that accurately.

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Matthias3110 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed references to several books as that might have been considered as advertisment.

It's ridiculous, on the one hand it's required to reference to the scientific contributions of a researcher, so that this person is considered as eligible for an wikipedia article an if you reference it it's considered advertisement.

Fact is, D. Holick contributed significantly to the field of vitamin D research and I referenced each single statement. As he did so much research, there were many aspects to mention - whicj I reference.

Hope the article won't be deleted, it's objective, it's referenced and Dr. Holick definitely deserves an article as he has been a leading expert in the field of vitamin D research for several decades.

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Matthias3110 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me summarize what I've written:

- One introducing sentence about the field of his research and his contributions (> 400 publications). Then I'm getting more specific: I explain, which diseases related to Vitamin D he investigated. - Then I refer to a review article he published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the most important scientific journals in (bio-)medicine, where he summurizes the most important associations between vitamin d and health - then a statement about his perception in the media (ist't it important to stress the importance of a person so that a person can be considered as important enough to have a wikipedia article?) and his bibliography (which I already remove so that nobody can accuse me of advertizing the books) - then a brief review of the most important steps of his carrer (Ph.D. medical degree, postdoc fellow, residency) - the I describe his contributions to the field of vitamin d, citing and referencing everything very precisly - then I mention some of the prizes he was awarded (again, isn't the receiving of awards one of the criteria that are required to be eligible for an Wikipedia article

Which kind of information should I have added or not added to not being accused of writing a spam article?!

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Matthias3110 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow one more aspect:

Describing the steps of his academic and professional career and describing his scientific accomplishments is not adverisment. He's a researcher and I summarized the most important scientific discoveries. The amount of discoveries he made are the reason why I wrote Wikipedia article, so I think it's indicated to mention them.

So why delete the whole article? If anyone feels, other aspects should also be mentioned, then add information. But why delete the whole article just because I've written down many aspects of the career of Dr. Holick that are important - and correct and accurately cited?! He made many discoveries, so what should I write about if not about what he did? Writing about his scientific oevre coincides in a way with mentioning "positive aspects". But this is not the intention of the article but the result of what he contributed.

Is something wrong with my article just because the person I'm writing about achieved a lot? What should I write? That he is an academic low-performer?!

So I hope those who will decide about that will see these arguments. And again, I've just written about several aspects of the carees of Michael F. Holick and if anyone feels, other pieces of information should be added to be more objective, then do it. But PLEASE DO NOT delete the whole article or accurate parts of the article!!

Best regards

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Matthias3110 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "leading" and "internationally recognized" to make this article as objective as possible. That change in combination with the removal of references to books that might have been considered as advertisment make the tagging of the article as "spam" or "promotion" obsolete. That's why I remove it.--Matthias3110 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

I agree that words like "leading" and "internationally recognized" sound as if I wanted to promote him - so I removed them, just as the reference to his bibliography as it might be considered advertisment. I'm definitely willing to improve the article and it's absolutely fine that you let me know this. But despite your criticism may be justified partly, a speedy deletion is not the appropriate reaction. I think my work is a good basis to modify the article that it meets the criteria of Wikipedia articles more. At the same time I think I provided significant and extremely precisely referenced pieces of information. And that should also be appreciated and could be taken as a basic work that is perfectionized - not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias3110 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Article improvements

[edit]

I'm trying to get a photo that meets all Wikipedia requirements and consider adding a section "Publications". --Matthias3110 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added wikilinks to divided the reference list into 2 columns. Rather than add more maintained tags I thought I would mention some of the minor improvements that could be made here. Some of the references are listed multiple times throughout the article, these can be combined using the <ref name=""/> feature, this page explains how. The lead section also needs to be expanded a bit to better summarise the article. An infobox could also be added, which along with a photo if you can find one, would improve the look and readability of the page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sarahj2107, thanks for the improvements and suggestions! I've expanded the lead section. Great to see how the article is getting better. --Matthias3110 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added the two sections "Selected publications" and "Current major grants". Maybe somebody can help with the layout and/or help with arranging these sections in the ideal position within the article. Thanks!--Matthias3110 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the grant info in a table, I played around with the formatting a bit and think this way is the clearest and easiest to understand. I'm not sure if I got the heading names right though, you might want to check them. I will have another look at the layout/sections later, but it might look better with the books and grants sections switched around. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sarah, excellent work!! Thanks so much, the article is really improving significantly :-)! I'll most likely get the permission to use one of Dr. Holicks photos, that will further increase the quality of the article. Do you think, expanding the publication list with adding more scientific articles published in scientific journals might help or do you have any other ideas? Thanks --Matthias3110 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think the article should be transferred to the "medium- or high-importance biography" category, as Dr. Holick's discoveries laid the foundation for new diagnostic tests and therapies from diseases affecting the bone metabolism, dermatological and nephrological pathologies. As at least several hundrets of millions of people suffer from vitamin D deficiency, what could for the first time been quantified due to the diagnostic test he developed, these discoveries are of great importance. There was a Nobel prize awarded for the isolation of Vitamin D in 1928 for Adolf Windaus, Niels Ryberg Finsen also received a Nobel prize for the discovery of the beneficial effects of photo therapy (due to vitamin D production). So the isolation of the 2 other major vitamin D forms (25-OH-Vitamin D and 1,25-OH2-Vitamin D + the chemical synthesis of the latter one should not be considered as low-importance, but high-importance! And that's why his biography is a high-importance biography! Can somebody please change that categorization? Thank you!--Matthias3110 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A long list of journal publications might get deleted, i've seen it happen in other articles. A few key publications might be ok though. What you could do is link to his pubmed search result in an external links section, the {{PubMedAuthorSearch|Last|FI}} template can be used for that. A link to his page at the bumc website could go there as well, or any other official sites. As for the importance category, you need to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia I think they are the ones who decide that sort of thing. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

most notable publications

[edit]

Hello, there's a discussion about which publications of Dr. Holick should be considered as his most important and notable ones. I agree, it's hard to tell! The only one you can answer this is Michael F. Holick. As I've contacted him today to ask him for permission to use one of his photos, I've written him another mail with the question, what HE thinks about that question. I know that this way of answering this question is not very transparent... Anybody, who has another idea how to objectify that question? Or how to prove it, if Dr. Holick made such a statement? Best regards, --Matthias3110 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could go by how many other articles cite it, that is generally a good indication of the notability or importance of an article. Pubmed gives this information on the right hand side of the page. For example the first publication listed PMID 17634462, is cited by over 100 articles listed on pubmed. I'm not sure how you could convert that information into a usable reference like the {{who}} tag is asking for though. The number of citing articles information is probably available elsewhere as well, and in a more easily referenced format, it's just finding it that's the problem.Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
great idea, a similar suggestion has also been made by Guillaume2303; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillaume2303#Michael_F._Holick --Matthias3110 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Michael F. Holick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_F._Holick&oldid=1199364055"