User talk:Badgettrg/Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (PMID: 7580661)
|
If/When the article is restored, the following tasks need to be done:
|
Can be redone
[edit]I think this can be redone if the result is delete--I am glad you're keeping the contents--but pls consult me first, and not immediately. Yes, WP moves fast. Yes, it has a bias against academic matters. But the first thing you should now do is read the WP articles about the other studies mentioned and see how these are reported. This place has conventions, and ways of arguing. Most of the scientists aroiund here dont really like them, but we've learned to work with them. Think of it as public education. DGG 03:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
original research review
[edit]Hi, I am going through the article to find what could be consider justification for the ruling of WP:OR on the Afd. If anyone has queries about the content of the article, please throw the query here so that everyone can trace the WP fact back to the study. John Vandenberg 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to list at WP:DRV if you disagree with the deletion. But I guess I should elaborate more, the whole thing looks like an academic research paper. I am not saying don't ever re-create it, but it does need drastic work to become an encyclopedia article. Also, please read over the other delete rationals. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The most obvious was the Table of results which is said to be a combination of Table 1 [1] and Table 4 [2] of the study. As a consequence it sounds a tad dodgy. Thankfully, those two images are available after signing up for free, and the numbers in the WP article match (admittedly I unnecessarily needed to fill the back of an envelope before I realised that the numbers all made sense once the biennial screenings column wasnt included, which is stated clearly in the WP article). The raw data does indicate that the biennial screenings are not significant, but could you explain why you thought it wasnt worth including them in the article? John Vandenberg 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
click here
[edit]The first point in the section "Are the results significant?" ends with "click here"; what should that point to ? John Vandenberg 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest
[edit]we would do better adding an article under the proper name with the proper content than by trying Deletion Review, a process that does not tend to give reasonably useful results. if we do it well enough it'll be more defensible from scratch. Eagle's comments are to the point.DGG 01:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The time is better spent working on the article here. Any comments on the todo list I set up? Feel free to add or remove items as you think is appropriate. John Vandenberg 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I too was perplexed by the closure reason, though not the actual decision. My "delete and recreate with a better name and content" was effectively the same as some other folk's "move to a better name and completely revise content". I agree that deletion review would be a waste of time. Best wishes for your new article. Colin°Talk 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Obviously I am new to the Wiki process, but the speed that everyone finds articles, even this one on a user page, amazes me.
- Comments:
- 1. The suggestions above and the todo list are very good, plus I have ideas on my own to add (such as describing the the literature synthesis method called 'CAT' and why I think it is a role that WP should be willing to take).
- 2. Some non-Wiki projects are going to reduce my time on this article for a while, so my slow response to your comments is due to scheduling and not disagreement or disinterest.
- Questions:
- 1. When developing a page that is different than the usual Wiki page, is the user space like I have started the correct way to do this without worrying about the public seeing this prematurely?
- 2. I have I have no problem with collaborating and other people editing this page; however does my putting the this page in my user space preclude others from editing?
- Yes, copying this article into user space was the right and normal thing to do. This topic was considered to be notable, but it needs work, and here is a good place for us to collaboratively improve it so that the article demonstrated the notability of the topic. This user page can be edited by anyone; I was waiting for a green light from you before making changes, as you may have already had a plan of attack in mind.
- The user space is governed by different rules due to the fact that a page in user space is not easily accessed by the rest of the world. I only found this page because you mentioned on the Afd that you had copied the article into user space, so I went looking for it on your list of contributions which can be viewed by anyone: Special:Contributions/Badgettrg. I presume DGG came here by similar means. Generally pages in user space are not nominated for deletion, and certainly verifiability and notability are not considered. The only reasons that I have seen articles in user space removed are to do with Wikipedia's legal responsibility as a result of hosting a Wiki farm, i.e. violating copyright, and pages that are utterly useless and wasting resources. John Vandenberg 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)