User talk:Doctor Jro
An article you recently created, NewsLens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. creffett (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Draft:NewsLens concern
[edit]Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:NewsLens, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:NewsLens
[edit]
Hello, Doctor Jro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "NewsLens".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
March 2023
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gallup, Inc, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please use proper secondary sourcing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The sources cited were reliable. Two were Gallup websites, which are widely read and used by journalists and scholars. The content was there for anyone to see. One source was a Princeton University newsletter with quotes from a public figure, and one was the U.S. BLS, a statistical agency. This was relevant and substantiated content, which added important information to the webpage about the accuracy of Gallup's polling. I do not believe you should have deleted it. Doctor Jro (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can't cite Gallup to sing the praises of Gallup. Information from the BLS is primary. A Princeton newsletter is not sufficiently peer-reviewed to verify these claims. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Gallup published data before the BLS which anticipated the BLS number. That is a transparent and relevant fact. If Gallup publishes an article predicting an election result, that is relevant information about whether the result is accuracy, because it can be compared to the official result. I have done the same thing here with unemployment. Here are the facts. Gallup predicted the BLS unemployment would increase from 4.4% to 14.6%. It was 14.7%. If you want to delete the statement that this is accuracy, fine, though it is transparently accurate, so you would be injecting your personal bias. In any case, readers should be given the opportunity to decide for themselves if they think this is accurate, and they can do so by comparing the Gallup publication on May 6 to the BLS publication on May 7. We do not need a peer-reviewed article to weigh in on every fact. Doctor Jro (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Moreover Cecilia Rouse's reference to Gallup data in a news article on this same topic is a relevant fact--and again something that can be verified. Wikipedia in no way requires that every statement be supported by peer-reviewed literature. You are making up your own standards. Doctor Jro (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- She is the current council of economic advisors to the president of the United States, so her use of Gallup data and is relevant to the credibility of Gallup polling.
- https://jrc.princeton.edu/people/cecilia-e-rouse
- You can also use google scholar or bing chatGPT to list every article published in academic press that uses Gallup data. Feel free to do so, but don't delete my work Doctor Jro (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Moreover Cecilia Rouse's reference to Gallup data in a news article on this same topic is a relevant fact--and again something that can be verified. Wikipedia in no way requires that every statement be supported by peer-reviewed literature. You are making up your own standards. Doctor Jro (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Gallup published data before the BLS which anticipated the BLS number. That is a transparent and relevant fact. If Gallup publishes an article predicting an election result, that is relevant information about whether the result is accuracy, because it can be compared to the official result. I have done the same thing here with unemployment. Here are the facts. Gallup predicted the BLS unemployment would increase from 4.4% to 14.6%. It was 14.7%. If you want to delete the statement that this is accuracy, fine, though it is transparently accurate, so you would be injecting your personal bias. In any case, readers should be given the opportunity to decide for themselves if they think this is accurate, and they can do so by comparing the Gallup publication on May 6 to the BLS publication on May 7. We do not need a peer-reviewed article to weigh in on every fact. Doctor Jro (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can't cite Gallup to sing the praises of Gallup. Information from the BLS is primary. A Princeton newsletter is not sufficiently peer-reviewed to verify these claims. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure thing. You need to cite secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you applied the standard you laid out for me to the rest of the article, you would be forced to delete information about Gallup incorrectly predicting presidential elections. That information was taken from Gallup sources, such as it's News page/website. If data from Gallup's website can be used to criticize the company, it can also be used to show how the company has correctly predicted many social science related phenomena. I can only conclude that you goal is to discredit the company, not to inform readers about factual matters relevant to its operations. Doctor Jro (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)