User talk:Prairie Astronomer/Archive 18
WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - August 2021
[edit]
- Issue 12—August 2021
- WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
|
Nothing this month |
|
|
News from around the site
- We have a bit of a backlog of good article nominations. Please help improve these articles by reviewing one if you have time. Instructions here.
- WP:URFA/2020 is reviewing and updating FAs that were promoted long ago. Several medicine-related FAs are on the list. Noting current work below. Feel free to jump in and help wherever you're interested:
- Acute myeloid leukemia (promoted in 2006) is getting a thorough update led by Tom (LT) and Spicy. Help is welcome.
- Influenza (promoted in 2006) was updated by Velayinosu and is awaiting review.
- Lung cancer (promoted in 2007) was updated by Axl, Graham Beards, and JenOttawa in preparation for a now-aborted run as WP:TFA.
- Autism (2007 promotion) and Major depressive disorder (2008 promotion) have requests for featured article reviews on their talk pages.
- I believe the oldest unreviewed medicine-related FAs are Michael Woodruff (2006 promotion), Bacteria (2006 promotion), and Coeliac disease (2008 promotion). These are likely to receive some attention soon.
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Importance assessments
[edit]I'm finding some of your assessments of importance in electronics articles a little strange. You put antimetric electrical network, an obscure concept in analysis, as "mid" but two-port network, a very widely used concept, as "low". Slotted line gets "mid", even though it is obsolete and its importance was only ever in the microwave fieled when it was current, yet waffle-iron filter (a microwave device I believe is still used) and double-tuned amplifier (widely used in IF stages of analogue radio and TV) both get "low". The "low" for mechanical-electrical analogies is also at least arguable. What test are you using to assess importance? SpinningSpark 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark Sir, I don't have a test yet, but how I assess is constantly evolving. This is wikipedia, so you, being more knowledgeable on electronics, can change it to whatever you deem appropriate. I do enjoy electronics, but being only 16 years old, I don't know nearly as much. Most of my "expertise" is in fire and EMS, as I am working on my Associates in Fire Science. If you would like to help teach me more about electronics, and assessing the articles, I will eventually (maybe a week later) answer. Thank you. Prairie Astronomer Contributions 23:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Most, if not all, of the articles I looked at were written by me. I do not think it appropriate to assess one's own work. The electronics Wikiproject has a guideline on assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment including a section on the importance scale. But if you don't have familiarity with a topic I would suggest that you stick to just assessing the quality. The importance of a topic is not always clear from reading the article alone. In fact, that can be downright misleading. SpinningSpark 12:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2021
[edit]- News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban
- In the media: Vive la différence!
- Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year
- Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs
- News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia
- Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview
- Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan
- Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia
Wikiproject Anatomy newsletter #7
[edit]Released September 2020 · Previous newsletter
Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.
I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.
Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
What's new
[edit]
 |
new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review |
 |
A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article |
 |
We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years |
 |
In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ([1], [2]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well |
 |
A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}}) |
 |
Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals) |
 |
Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ([3]) and Hippocampus ([4]) are published in Wikiversity. |
Newsletter topic: anatomy and featured articles
[edit]I have been asked to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.
A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!
Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.
Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.
You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.
SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations
How can I contribute?
[edit]- Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask at our project page!
- Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
- Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
- Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there
This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list
WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
[edit]The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
[edit]Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
 Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators:
Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|