User talk:Olivialiautaud

Welcome!

Hello, Olivialiautaud, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPREAD article

Hello Olivia, thanks for creating this article! I contribute to biochemistry articles and am always keen to see more biochemistry content on Wikipedia. You may wish to look at the Molecular and Cell Biology WikiProject which coordinates Wikipedia content in this area.

Unfortunately, this article has some problems has some problems which for me present a problem for it being permanently accepted on Wikipedia:

It's not clear what the article is about from the first sentence, so it doesn't introduce the topic for a general readership. Wikipedia articles should have a clear introduction explaining what they're about. Compare with the protein kinase A article, or the fluid mosaic model one. I hold a degree in the topic this article is about and was struggling from pretty early on (e.g. what does "stochastic manner" mean in this context?). It feels like this article was written for a different use (say a journal, or a thesis) rather than for Wikipedia's readership (people looking up different kinase enzymes, say).
If this is a model for understanding a process, it should begin clearly by giving information. Whose model is it? Who accepts it? Who doesn't, and what are its limitations and issues it doesn't fully explain? This is important for demonstrating that a topic is notable and acceptable for Wikipedia. For instance, the fluid mosaic model is a widely accepted term used in explaining the concept, even if it doesn't explain everything about cell surface membranes. Who, other than the person who coined the term, uses and accepts this "SPREAD model"?
The article seems to contain or put forward original research (e.g. the heading "A proposed mechanism for spatial propagation of ERK activity", which Wikipedia doesn't include: it's a basic idea that Wikipedia doesn't take unpublished material.

Reading the article, I just feel like this article is a block of text from an pre-existing source (I'm guessing maybe your thesis?). This doesn't automatically rule it out as being a valid article, but it needs a bit of a rethink content-wise, probably taking down the complexity level, putting in more cues for a general readership, and explaining terms as they come up.

Whether it's a valid article for Wikipedia really depends on one thing: is this "SPREAD model" a generally accepted term in its field? If so, citations demonstrating its general acceptance would be necessary for the article to stay. If not, perhaps an appropriate place for this content would be articles on the individual enzymes you reference. Blythwood (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Spatial propagation of radial ERK distribution

The article Spatial propagation of radial ERK distribution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to fail WP:OR, WP:OPINION and (more loosely) WP:ONESOURCE. This term doesn't seem to be in common use-I can only find it in one of the citations, and not in any third-party sources, and despite cleanup the article isn't integrated with any other material on Wikipedia at all well. I think a more appropriate place for this content could be the ERK article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blythwood (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]