User talk:Sascha Gruss

Hello, Sascha Gruss, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Automated Pain Recognition (February 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This reads like a summary from a research paper / journal. WP:NOTJOURNAL / WP:NOR No context as to how this concept came about or its origins.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Automated Pain Recognition 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:Automated Pain Recognition, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sascha Gruss! 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! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Automated Pain Recognition

Draft:Automated Pain Recognition, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Automated Pain Recognition and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Automated Pain Recognition during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 94rain ^Talk 06:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Sascha Gruss

Thank you for creating Automated Pain Recognition.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Per Wikipedia's policy against original research, information should only be added to articles if it can be cited to a secondary source. For up and coming fields of research such as APR, this may mean that we can't add information about certain aspects of the topic because proper secondary sources don't exist yet. Please consider paring back the article so as to remove information that cannot be cited to reliable, secondary sources

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Hello Rosguill, thank you very much for your comment. We will try our best to improve this article with reliable, secondary sources. I assume you refer to the references [7][8][10-15]? If so: [7] & [8] : I will check other sources [10] : This is just a survey about existing methods and data bases. This should be fine? [11-15] : These are papers about pain data bases and where and how to get it. All data bases are free available for almost anyone. Should I remove it (or put the URLs to the data bases if they exist)? Again, thank you very much, Sascha. Sascha Gruss (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Gruss, I don't have time right now to review everything in detail, but honestly I'm most concerned about the information that isn't backed up by any footnotes at the moment (and particularly the "Potential applications" section which I removed). Glancing at the claims that 7 and 8 are supporting, I think I'd actually be ok with keeping the citation as long as the wording is rephrased from "Measurements usually focus..." to "Measurements can include" or something else along those lines. The main remaining set of sourced claims that strike me as a bit problematic is the list of databases, since the cited papers seem to for the most part introduce those databases. We shouldn't mention such work except after it has been analyzed by additional sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I've made the changes, added one more source and linked it to the german page. Hope this is fine now. Sascha Gruss (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks improved. There's still a few paragraphs with no footnotes that could probably use a citation or two, but I think that my concerns have been addressed enough to remove the OR tag. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]