User talk:Canucksplayer
Welcome
[edit]
|
| This is Canucksplayer's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: MIL-53 (April 8)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:MIL-53 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:MIL-53, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Canucksplayer!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Majavah (t/c) 14:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: MIL-53 has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: MIL-47 has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
KylieTastic (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)- Hi, rather than rejecting to point you to the correct place I accepted but note that for new redirects the requests should go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:DUT-5 has a new comment
[edit]Your submission at Articles for creation: DUT-5 has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
-- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Welcome to Wikipedia
[edit]Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are:
- Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
- Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest. Many new editors cite themselves mainly. That behavior is unacceptable.
If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Smokefoot Thank you for these advices. Unfortunately, they still left some open questions:
- For the articles on DUT-5 and HKUST-1, there are no reviews on these topics. Does that mean that I cannot set up a wiki page on these topics, since no secondary sources are available? In the case of MIL-53, the review is not up to date anymore, should I then rather use primary sources only for newly published or forgotten literature and use the review as citation?
- I am author of few of these references, but the major amount >95% of the citations that I inserted are not from me or colleques that I know personally. For a complete overview, they are nonetheless important. Furthermore, I did not state any interpretation on these topics, but rather provided an overview on published literature. Can you quickly give your opinion if I should not do that? --Canucksplayer (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Check out WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a technical journal: it provides overviews. It is an encyclopedia. It is not Chem Soc Rev. Wikipedia does not compete with technical journal, where real scientists fight it out.
- 2671 articles discuss the topic of HKUST-1, according to Chemical Abstracts. So are you going to cite them all? No? What are the criteria for the handful that you do cite - that they include your papers? Or you are the judge and referee? The advantages to citing mainly reviews are these: (i) its the rule, (ii) readers benefit more, (iii) doing so lifts that responsibility from the shoulders of the editor.
The art of contributing to Wikipedia is not citing primary literature. It is providing an overview. Doing so is difficult because giving perspective requires broad knowledge and restraint.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Smokefoot I have read the articles you suggested and a few more. I would really like to learn/know how to improve on writing articles. I got the problem what you are telling me, parts of it I was aware of before and others I haven't thought about before. So I'm still trying to figure out a solution. If I stick to the topic HKUST-1: This page did not exist before and there is no review in scientific literature so far. Which of the following possibilities would you advice me to follow?
- Do not create a page unless a review is published.
- Create a page and mention only details that are reported by several articles independently (in this case e.g. the structure and components)
- Create page and add details like the ones that can be found on the current version, but using less citations.
- I hope that you can help me or know someone that can and wants to deal with me and my annoying questions. In any way, thank you for your efforts and patience! --Canucksplayer (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Smokefoot I have read the articles you suggested and a few more. I would really like to learn/know how to improve on writing articles. I got the problem what you are telling me, parts of it I was aware of before and others I haven't thought about before. So I'm still trying to figure out a solution. If I stick to the topic HKUST-1: This page did not exist before and there is no review in scientific literature so far. Which of the following possibilities would you advice me to follow?