Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 8 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 10 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


January 9

[edit]

04:17:00, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Spesshot

[edit]

I have included new citations and removed unverifiable material in answer to the review and wish to know whether my citations are now sufficient Spesshot (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Spesshot Spesshot (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spesshot , it would seem from the contents you may have a conflict of interest; if so, you must declare it--see WP:COI. But what you now need to do is to 1/ remove all the over-personal material about his family, 2/ remove the table of contents you inserted--the software automatically generates it, 3/move most of the material in the lede paragraph toa section on publications, 4/remove all adjectives of excellence or importance--the work should speak for itself, 5/ add a specific list of the 4 or 5 most cited articles, using citation data from Google Scholar or equivalent, 6/ link additional key subject words to our articles, and 7/ try to copyedit for greater conciseness. Then resubmit, and let me know. He is very highly notable as a member of the NAS and holder of a named professorship at NYU, and we definitely should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:43, 9 January 2022 review of submission by WQFDU

[edit]

Dear editor,

I have been modified the draft for several time and really need your help! Could you provide more details about how to revise the article to make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Thank you so much!


WQFDU (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WQFDU As the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further; no amount of editing can confer notability upon a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:50:47, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Aman13130

[edit]

Hi,

I have seen Nabhit Kapur's draft is rejected many times and now I deleted all promotional content and added a few references. Can you see it for re-review? If it is still not fine then can you tell me the issue? Aman13130 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman13130 It was declined several times, and rejected the last time(there is a difference); The rejection means that it won't be considered further, because, as stated by the reviewer, the person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. No amount of editing can confer notability upon someone. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot this draft was accepted one time and then declined five times. This draft is about Nabhit Kapur, a famous psychologist from Delhi, India. There are more than 50 media sources that have written about him so I think it qualifies a notable person. Kindly look at the draft.


Thank you Aman13130 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman13130 It was never "accepted" as an article by anyone; it was created in article space, found to be not ready yet, and moved to draft space as an alternative to outright deletion. The sources offered include a video of him, an interview with him, and basic announcements of his activities. These are not acceptable for establishing notability; this is why the draft was finally rejected after several declines. It won't be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you have edited about no other topic, I'm wondering if you have an association with him; please read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:47:15, 9 January 2022 review of draft by Gutam2000

[edit]


The journal page is pending review. Please someone look at the page and if its worth then publish or else purge it. Thank you.

Sridhar Gutam 10:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gutam2000: There is no deadline and as stated in the submission notice it may take two months or more to review. Please be patient as we are all volunteers and reviews are not completed in any particular order. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:58, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Arjun Chauhan Davanagere

[edit]


Arjun Chauhan Davanagere (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Why my article is declined, pls help me with this[reply]

Arjun Chauhan Davanagere The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. To succeed in submitting a draft about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and all materials put out by you or your associates, and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. The sources you have offered are not appropriate; IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-editable, the other sources do not have significant coverage of you.
Also understand that if you submitted a draft about yourself and it was accepted, you would no longer be able to edit it directly, and would be limited to edit requests. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:18, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Valavanthan uma

[edit]


Valavanthan uma (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was a blatant advertisement. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:54, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Rosko932

[edit]


I am confused about exactly what constitutes "original research". My article, a biography of a research scientist, was rejected for that reason. I assumed that articles written by the subject of the article published in independent peer-reviewed journals and books would be considered acceptable secondary sources for citations, but apparently this is not the case. I have looked at other Wikipedia biographies of scientists and most of them have citations written by the subject of the article, including biographies classified as "good" by Wikipedia. So apparently, these citations are not completely forbidden. Is the problem with my article the fact that the great majority of the references were citations of articles written by the subject, and I need more secondary sources; that is, citations written by others ABOUT the subject and her work? It seems hard in the case of a research scientist to separate the person from their research, since that is normally the only thing they are known for. It seems weird to me that you can't directly cite the subject's own research in support of the article. Rosko932 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


c (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosko932, the review by CNMall41 is irrelevant . The relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work. Her most cited papers have been cited 604, 472, 385 ... times, which is enough to prove notability for any acaemic in any field, even the field of biomedicine with its characteristically high citations. I am about to add them, and accept the article.
Nor do I understand the reference to WP:OR. WP:OR means that you as the contributor here should not be doing your own original research. I ssuppose the review was referring to the absence of 3rd party sources, but that's not necessary here. The career is adequately referenced by the official CV, and the importance of the work by the citations. The article does need some improvement, and I can best demonstrate them by the edits I shall make.
Please understand that 95% of submitted drafts are in fields where the GNG is applicable, and substantial 3rd party reliable published sources are necessary, so reviewers tend to have that in mind, and even good reviewers for other topics sometimes forget that researchers have a special and independent guideline. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "irrelevant." This is the draft that was reviewed. The only reference outside of the subject's "works" section was this used to support the sentence "Her dissertation was titled “Circadian rhythms of temperature, waking, and activity in the rat: dissociations, desynchronizations, and disintegrations." Using her dissertation to support that she wrote it is original research. All other references were just evidence of her work. The cleanup you did was better but still need reliable secondary sources, something I was unwilling to do for drafter since they are being compensated for Wikipedia work and I just don't feel comfortable assisting in such. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But for the 1st criterion of WP:PROF you do not need references outside the subject's work & an official CV--except to show the number of citations. As that's the relevant criterion for most academics, it is in my opinion not ideal practice to review such an article without checking for this. I have indeed sometimes declined an article and asked the author to addd the citations, but I do not call it failure to show notability; I usually word it, to avoid any possible challenge at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disconnect is between WP:NPROF and other relevant guidelines. Just because a topic is notable does not mean it automatically gets approved through AfC. In fact, it was not declined for notability. If someone meets PROF, that does not mean that we can then create an article full of unsourced content and/or original research as that would violated BLP guidelines. That is what happened in this case. So I would say it is "irrelevant" if it was declined for notability reasons, but it wasn't. I get your point, it just hit me wrong how you worded it in your original reply. No biggie. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:02:58, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview

[edit]


Dear editors of Wikipedia, I (signature Flyview alias Hans E Berg, MD/associate professor) am hereby asking for a re-review of my draft on a new article “Flywheel Exercise” that was first declined on December 30 by reviewers Greenman and Caleb Stanford, and thereafter rejected on Jan 4 2022 by reviewer DGG, all referring to copyright violation as I understand it: -Caleb: “this text reads as it was copied from somewhere” -Greenman: ”Although I cannot find the source, the text is clearly copied from somewhere” -WP/DGG/: Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: “apparently copiedfrom elsewhere” DGG (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Those words are indeed strong, and I must say I am shocked by this response, with no detailed substantiation of the alleged copyright violation. I can have other ideas of their hesitance, as developed below, BUT I have already firmly explained why this is my own original text; words and structure, verified by about 50 published references; most peer-reviewed scientific articles in sports and space medicine papers.

COPYRIGHT: I am open (se disclaimer on my User page) with the fact that I and my brother invented the modern use of flywheels in strength training (1993), and that we (HE Berg and PA Tesch) did the first commercial exploitations of this technology and founded YoYo Technology/nHance Inc. Since 2017 I have no economic revenue of the growing international sales stemming from my invention, however. Thus, I do not own any copyright to what is presented in the draft. Moreover, my text/wording is not pasted from the cited and scientific journals (owning copyrights). You, like I did, can verify this by running www.grammarly.com or any other browser for plagiarism! My language is probably shaped by my 50+ peer-reviewed scientific publications in muscle physiology, sports, rehab and space medicine and orthopaedic surgery during 30 years in science. Also, I wrote about 10 of the 200+ articles about flywheel exercise, and there are not unlimited words to use and ways to write the text. Images used within the first draft were however not all not cleared for copyright: -Aviation Space Environmental Medicine journal of 1994; first photo and flywheel principle. -ESA/NASA photos of use in space and science. -Photos courtesy of YoYo Technology (athletes performing flywheel training; 2005-2013). Most of the above photos/figures may certainly be cleared in due WP ways. BUT the current draft edition for the reasons use only photos from Wikimedia commons (free for use)! These include one recent flywheel rehab apparatus from a leading manufacturer, that I have no relation to.

The main reason to write an article in Wikipedia (I use it every day) is for the reader to find descriptions of all possible subjects of notability, which I argue for below. The reviewer has the obligation not to obstruct a writer/student/scientist of an article if the data can be verified, and that a potential bias can be resolved. I always start my scientific review processes to assume that the author is telling the truth, even when there could be a commercial bias; be sponsored/choosing a certain orthopedic implant for example. Transparency is the main tool to resolve it. In Wikipedia an article has the beauty of improving itself and any correction can be made by the multiple readers and editors.

NOTABILITY: References 5,6,7,38 of my submitted Wiki Draft are all review articles that discuss Flywheel Resistance Training effects on muscle mass, strength and sports performance. Using the world standard search engine PubMed (https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov) searching “flywheel exercise OR flywheel training” you will find a rapidly increasing number of sports science publications (39 sci. articles in 2020 and 38 in 2021!). After the (classic) use of barbells, dumbbells, weight-stack machines and your body weight, probably flywheels are now the most commonly used load for strength training. Searching NASA.gov or ESA.int; for Flywheel Exercise Device, reading refs. 3,4,20,27,28 or consult Wiki Human Space flight etc, will underline that Flywheel exercise is one of a few technologies being considered for future Mars missions. I think therefore this Wiki article is relevant for the WP Encyclopedia readers and merits for publication. Probably, there are other authors thinking of writing the latest experiences in sports/rehab and space medicine on this topic, and I think this article would be a good start.

VERIFIABILITY: Some of the above references are written by our research group during the first years after inventing this technology, but currently the vast majority of studies come from universities all over the world as mirrored by the current Reference list. Of course, my history of inventing, prototyping, researching and formerly marketing flywheel technology could make me challengeable or biased in my description; BUT again my thought this will be openly reviewed, discussed and if necessary corrected by all WP readers and editors as soon as the article is published on WP! Or before if you the editors point out the specific problems remaining. In summary, like many others this is my first article, and it has been hard work trying to master all theoretical and practical obstactles. I find the syntax/interface particularly hard to cope with; web-publishers have perhaps another standpoint. The 50 references are doubled in the current list and the many search terms in the text are not marked out. I will probably go on doing that if not an automated bot-program within WP does this automated. With the above words I hope that this article is thoroughly evaluated. Regards / Flyview=Hans E Berg

Appendix: The more extensive text of Greenman/WP 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 on the notability of people). 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 

 Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.”

Flyview (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DGG, Greenman, Caleb Stanford, and Flyview:, I think this may deserve another look. Flyview, copyright is a legal issue for which both Wikipedia and the contributor (in this instance you) is responsible so I hope you can appreciate the seriousness of it. It sounds like you do. However, I am sure not how to get past "suspected" copyright violations but not "proven" especially given it is suspected by seasoned editors who have developed at keen sense for such things. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the following question for @Flyview: Why did the original text contain a lot of inline figure references like "Fig. 1b", "Figure 2" etc. but no figures (and still some of these present in current draft)? It looked obviously copied to me (anyone can take a look at the history of the draft for past versions). I am most suspicious of Plagiarism#self-plagiarism: that as an academic in this area, you may have copied this text from a paper of yours, paper draft, or academic notes. I made no claim about a copyright violation.
Example (in current draft of article): "When fully unwound, the strap rewinds by virtue of the stored kinetic/rotational energy, while being decelerated by mostly eccentric muscle action (Figure 1b)"
Your claims don't make sense to me in light of such sentences; no one writing normally (even if they normally write a lot of academic text) just randomly references a figure that doesn't exist. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had two reasons for rejection: the basic one that makes the draft impossible to accept is the copyvio or plagiarism, as just outlined. The figure numbering is diagnostic. Resubmitting a draft containing such once it has been pointed out without removing it, would be seen by many admins as a sufficient reason to block your from Wikipedia. The second one, which requires rewriting throughout, is the advocacy that seems to underly the article; this is shown by the inclusion of multiple references for the same point, of excessive general background material on exercise, of using illustrations and descriptions of your own patented equipment and of over-expansive claims to have invented the method: the article itself shows the technique was known almost a century before your patent. That you patented a method and devices for using it for spaceflight training should be just a subsidiary part of the contents, and you made it the lede. It is extremely difficult, more than most people would realize, to write an encyclopedia article on something one has in considerable part developed oneself.
I do accept the notability , and I do not really understand why the previous reviewer did not. I do think it's an important subject, and I agree we should have an article. If you were to rewrite it, you need to 1/remove or rewrite all material from anything you or anyone have previously published (it is not practical to donate the copyright: the publisher is likely to own it, and the ownership is that of the authors, you are only a joint author for almost all of it and you cannot donate property which other people own in part). and 2/ try to write it to use the minimum number of citations from your own work--in a few cases your work may be the best citation, but not always. In rewriting, to avoid inadvertent copyvio from material you know well, I would suggest starting from scratch. (And I point out that statements related to the treatment of humana disease must meet WP:MEDRS standards). DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_January_9&oldid=1065736542"