User talk:KatieERoberts
KatieERoberts, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi KatieERoberts! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Vivian Li (March 7)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vivian Li 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:Vivian Li, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- Just seen that the updated/expanded Vivian Li article has been approved by another editor. Paul W (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruth Plummer has been accepted
[edit]
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Bkissin (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Ways to improve Jane Endicott
[edit]Hello, KatieERoberts,
Thank you for creating Jane Endicott.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
To prove notability, independent writings about the person or their work should be referenced. The LMS reference might be independent, but only includes two lines. None of the other references are independent of the subject.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]
|
September 2020
[edit]
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Samra Turajlic, from its old location at User:KatieERoberts/Samra Turajlic. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
advice about biographies
[edit]I'm one of the experienced administrators who review biographies of notable scientists, especially in biology, the field of my doctorate. I would like to give you some advice about our guidelines which will make the work much easier for us:
style
[edit]- We do not use the prefixes Professor and Dr. These titles are assumed from context.
- We do not frequently repeat the name of the individual within the article. When we do , possibly once per section, we use the last name alone. Most of the time "he" or "she" is a much better substitute, unless there is ambiguity,
- we do not make multiple links to the same Wikipedia article. When we mention the name of an institution or person or concept or chemical or disease the first time, we link it. After that, we do not.
- We do not make multiple full references to the same source. If you're working in Visual editior, just copy the link number
- When linking to a web site, we use the website= parameter in the cite web template to give the name of the web source. We also normally use the access-date=. parameter
- We add an external link to the individual's page at their principal institution. If we use it as a reference--which we can only do for basic data--we also make a link in the usual way.
- If the individual's dfull academic CV is available online, we find it and use it as another external link. It can also be used as a reference for basic data, and is preferable to their web page because it normally includes exact dates and position titles.
content
[edit]There are also some more general factors:
- We do not talk vaguely about possible applications. It is assumed as a matte of common sense that the work of a reseacher in a cancer institute is directed towards improving the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. We do not talk about medical applications unless they are ore than vague hope and plans. And if we are talking about medical application, we use references that conform tothe WP:MEDRS standard.
- We give exact years for every academic degree and every significant position, in chronological order.
- We include major honours, but not minor ones, generally in a separate section. Major honors include highest level awards on a national or international basis, normally those with a Wikipedia article on the award itself. Minor honours include student awards, post-doc fellowships, and amounts of grants, though we do mention funding agencies. Awards for "developing" scientists or "future leaders" are not major awards--they in fact correspond to one of our common resons for deleting an article: "not yet notable" Notable people are current leaders, not future leaders. Awards given by the individual's own university or institution or are not major awards.
- Major honours other than awards are the position of being editor in chief of a journal; being one of a board of editors is not, Being a reviewer is not even worth mentioning--every post-doc and up reviews articles for journals. Being head of a university department of of a research institution is worth mentioning, but not as a naward: it goes in the list of positions. Other university service is not usually mentioned at all. We normally mention and include links to the articles for all of the subject's doctoral students who are notable enough to have articles in their own right. We include a link to the Ph.D and postdoctoral advisors--if there is no article on them, there probably should be.
- Since a Wikipedia article is not a CV, we list only selected papers. Normally, we include a list of the 4 or 5 most cited articles, using data from GoogleScholar or Scopus or ISI. There will sometimes be occasion to list other papers to document a major discovery--if so, select the most definitive or most prestigeous of the available papers.
- We write compactly. We do not say "___ was invited to become a fellow of the ___ in __ for her “outstanding contribution to experimental cancer medicine". We listthe honour in the appropriate section, with date and reference. It is assumed that a cancer scientist is being given an award for their contribution to cancer research, and that the awarding body considers the work "outstanding". When there's a specific discovery cited, that can and should be mentioned.
- We do not explain basic biology. We just link to the Wikipedia articles on the subjects.
COI
[edit]Statements of COI are particularly important, and are not optional. You say on your user page that you are a "senior digital news manager at Cancer Research UK where I edit and write for the science blog and news feed" According to our rules on WP:COI that makes you a connected contributor and WP:PAID editor for articles on people supported by that organisation--and I notice that you have been working on articles primarily on such people. . There are required disclosures: On your user page you must list every article you have made significant contributions to where you are a connected paid contributor. On the talk page of each such article you must place a paid contributor statement., and you should place the appropriate template on the article itself. In addition, you may not create articles on which you are a paid editor in mainspace, but only in draft space. They must be reviewed by an experienced editor before they are moved to main space. These rules are not optional; they are part of our terms of use and of the supplementary rules of the English Wikipedia.
It is possible for a paid editor to do acceptable biographical articles, but experience mhas shown that it is difficult, because encyclopedia articles are written differently than press releases. They are not meant to impress the reader with the importance of the organisation, or of the subject, nor are they written to tell the reader what the organisation or subject would like them to know about themselves. Rather, they are intended to provide the information a general reader might want to know, having heard of the person. There's a difference.
current action
[edit]Under our COI rules, I would be justified in returning all of your articles where you are a paid connected contributor and which did not go through draft space to Draft for re-evaluation. I.am not going to do that, because there are no serious doubts that the individual involved will not meet our requirements for an article, though I will need to check the citation data to be sure--high citations that show the person an influence in their field are the basic consideration for notability under WP:COI. The other problems, as noted above, can be fixed in main space. I was reviewing the draft for Samra Turajlic , and I had started to fix some of the problems, before I realized that the problems there apply to other articles also. But I expect you to start fixing these immediately, and to write in Draft when WP:PAID applies. I remind you that articles in violation of our terms of use can be and often are generally deleted, though I try to avoid it when the subjects are clearly notable , as here. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Samra Turajlic has been accepted
[edit]I approved this to show you how to write an article in the appropriate style. I made some necessary changes to decrease promotionalism , and may make some more. In general, avoid mentioning the names of institutes more than once, the amount of grants, -and prospective medical applications. It is obvious that all research on cancer, is directed towards detection and treatment. Please look at what I changed to make surey ou understand.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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. .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)