User talk:Wormpicker62

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Wormpicker62! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:27, Wednesday, December 15, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Wormpicker62! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 16:59, Thursday, December 16, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome!

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For your draft on Lucas Andrew Staehelin. *TheTechnician27* (Talk page) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Wormpicker62! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, My first entry. Could someone please take a look?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lucus Andrew Staehelin (March 17)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks for creating this page. Staehelin will almost certainly satisfy WP:PROF but if possible the addition of any WP:RS would be good. Please amend the page accordingly and ping me and I will reassess.

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:Lucus Andrew Staehelin 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:Lucus Andrew Staehelin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cabrils,

Thank you very much for your quick review and feedback on my Wikipedia article. I appreciate your advice on how to edit the article to make it qualify for publication.

Best regards, @Wormpicker62 Wormpicker62 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Let me know when you feel it's ready for another review. Cabrils (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cabrils

Thanks again for reviewing my draft article on Professor Lucus Andrew Staehelin. After reviewing the criteria for notability of academics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) ), I have some questions for you in light of the guideline that “Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.”:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Several of the citations (9, 15) are independent scientific articles and reviews that cite Professor Staehelin’s contributions to the field. Of course, the hundreds or thousands of scientific citations, reflected in Staehelin’s H-index, also attest to his significant impact in his field.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

The five awards that I cited are highly prestigious national or international honors, particularly the German National Academy of Sciences membership, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Fellow of the American Society of Plant Physiologists.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

I am still researching whether Dr. Staehelin has served as editor-in-chief of academic journals. He has served as editor or co-editor of several key books in his field, such as:

Plant Cell Walls, by Peter Albersheim, Alan Darvill, Keith Roberts, Ron Sederoff, Andrew Staehelin

https://www.routledge.com/Plant-Cell-Walls/Albersheim-Darvill-Roberts-Sederoff-Staehelin/p/book/9780815319962

Photosynthesis III: Photosynthetic Membranes and Light Harvesting Systems

by L. Andrew Staehelin (Editor), Charles J. Arntzen (Editor)

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-70936-4

Could you please advise me on how I can more thoroughly document or highlight these criteria in my article to fulfill the notability requirement? Thanks again. Wormpicker62 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wormpicker62: Good work progressing the draft. I will have a look this week and respond. 06:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Cabrils. In addition to listing the notability criteria in my previous message I have now cited additional secondary references--review articles--that independently document Staehelin's scientific contributions described in the article. Namely, I've added references 3, 4, 5, 6, and 21. I have also added requested references for Staehelin's birth date and time at Harvard University. Thanks again for your time and work helping me with this draft. Wormpicker62 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's good work. The page now makes clear that he passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Please go ahead and submit the page and I'd be happy to approve it. Just an incidental note: the page is still very heavy on references that are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources, they are primary sources written by Staehelin. Strictly speaking they should not be permitted, however in the context of the page as a whole they are "OK" (because of the other evidence supporting his notability like fellowship of the AAAS etc) but that's why it's helpful/important to add as many true independent RS as possible. Those review articles you've added are also helpful (and establish Staehelin's work has "had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline") but any articles in the general press would be welcome additions. Once the page is live I'll have a look and would encourage you to also--these pages are always a work in progress! Again, well done and your collaborative approach is to be commended. Cabrils (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, @Cabrils! This has certainly been an interesting learning experience for me. I hope this will be just my first of many contributions to Wikipedia. A really appreciate all your help and advice, and will work to continue improving the article. I've resubmitted it. Wormpicker62 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good on you Wormpicker! I hope so, it can be very rewarding. Feel free to ping me with any future submissions or questions generally. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider adding a section "Selected bibliography" as a way of incorporating his books and his more significant articles. Cabrils (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. That's a good way to delineate those citations from the secondary citations about his life and work. Thanks. Wormpicker62 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wormpicker62! 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! Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lucus Andrew Staehelin has been accepted

Lucus Andrew Staehelin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! This is exciting! Wormpicker62 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]