Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 8 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 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.


November 9

[edit]

01:37, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Memories of

[edit]

I'm not understanding how this draft doesn't show that this music group has received significant coverage. They have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, and receieved significant coverage in articles from NPR, Consequence, Paste, and Stereogum. I've seen articles of other groups in the mainspace for years now that don't have as many sources of this nature. Memories of (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. This is why each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not in comparison with other articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Interviews do not establish notability, as they are not independent sources, being the band speaking about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 66.41.37.183

[edit]

Hello, I have drastically changed the article and make sure the references were better. So sorry about that. May we publish? 66.41.37.183 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not significant coverage of the company that describes how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. An article must do more than document the existence of the company and what it does, it must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Typically, after a rejection, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Benking84

[edit]

I am unclear how any articles can get posted to Wikipedia, this is a subject that has 30 references, some of these are from the largest news organisations in the country.

The feedback has always been addressed as best I can with my limited understanding, so if there are any other sections that need fixing I am happy to take feedback and implement it. Benking84 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it reads like an advertisement, especially the introduction. See "[t]he founders of Swiss 8 have first-hand experience in managing mental health issues;" this is the kind of thing an advert trying to promote Swiss 8 would say, the phrasing is bad for a wiki article. Also "Swiss 8 aims to create a new approach to mental health care that is proactive," this could be rephrased more like "A stated goal of Swiss 8 is to create a new proactive approach to mental health care" There are many other examples as well. Also I can't comment on whether the subject is even notable enough to get an article. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benking84 I see you declared a COI; if you work for Swiss 8, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't work for them, I did some volunteering a year or so ago as they are a charity. Even if I did though it is an entity that has had multiple media articles in the biggest papers in the country this year, so is of importance to the public.
Is this the issue? The admins assumed that I was being paid to write the article? Benking84 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Fbarbe

[edit]

My submission has been rejected for appearing to "read more like an advertisement". Note that I have not been paid and have no financial interest in the project (which is a research project) to write this Wikipedia page. I have, however, used Ludii for my bachelor thesis, so I am aware of my bias. This is my first time writing a new Wikipedia article, and would be very grateful if someone could highlight the paragraphs/parts that make it sound like an advertisement and that I could change. Fbarbe (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fbarbe In the first instance please approach the reviewer who declined it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Chrisw1117

[edit]

Why was it declined? Chrisw1117 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisw1117: for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. Have you read them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I based it off another award winner from the same award? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivi_Lin Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisw1117: the Vivi Lin article has its own problems, mimicking it may not be a good idea. In any case, we don't assess drafts by comparison to whatever may exist out there, but by checking whether they meet the necessary standards for publication. Yours fails on notability grounds, due to its sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources is not credible? They are all from news agencies and the award platforms themselves , (sorry I am just trying to learn lol) Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award platforms are what we call primary sources, we need reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So would the news agencies that confirmed the awards and discussed not count to support? Chrisw1117 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Arunvikram2208

[edit]

My article is getting declined even after adding independent sources Arunvikram2208 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunvikram2208: there is precisely one source cited!
This draft is being declined for lack of evidence of notability. That requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Congrats on creating a strong contender for the longest article title, though. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you added sources, but I only see one source. You should first gather your sources and then summarize them- not write a text and then look for sources to support it- see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 115.114.90.174

[edit]

Hi,

Why my article submission is rejected multiple times despite the fact that it provides all the necessary information from relevant trusted sources. ?

Kindly help. 115.114.90.174 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find no draft with such a title, and your edit history under this IP address shows only one edit, namely this help desk query. Please provide more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been editing the following page: Draft:Bharti AXA Life. I have submitted the article twice as per the requirement. But now, it got's deleted. Please help me to retrieve the same and in editing the article as per the wikipedia guidelines. RahulRaiSahab (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Bharti AXA Life
Okay, thanks. As you can see, the title is different from what you first gave.
This draft has been deleted as promotional. You may ask the deleting administrator to have it returned to you for drafting, but this is far from guaranteed.
What is your connection to this company? I will post a query on your talk page, please respond to it promptly. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Vicpaz

[edit]

Hello, I've been working on this article about a living musician (that happens to be my husband) for 9 months now, I started by clicking on a red link on his American label's wikipedia page.

I'm not getting any response on my messages to the last reviewer, and he mostly justifies the rejection by the "tone" issue, is the 3rd time I get this reason, I did a lot of work reading the Manual of Style, but it seems I still has some work to do (and stuff to learn)


This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.


Can anybody help me solve this "tone" issue? I collaborated editing many musician's articles (in other languages than English) I honestly I see a similar tone and overall style in my article, but I really appreciate any help.

Since the last rejection I did change some small details, removing references and a couple a words that could be considered "peacock" mostly adjectives .

Thanks in advance Vicpaz (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicpaz I do not see it as an advert. The tone looks acceptable. All you need to dos to proves that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and then resubmit it for further review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping into this.
What I've found (as sources) satisfies Criteria for musicians #1, 5, 10 and 12.
For 1 there are the press quotes.
For number 5 (Has released two or more albums...on important indie labels) I was asked by a reviewer to remove ref pointing to Discogs (still can't understand why, but I did remove them) and to the label's release announcements. I cant point the article to any better than the label's announcement!
For number 10 there are the film and series placements, but for the major ones (Narcos, Ozark, etc) there are no media coverage, only a mention in the credits and some inclusions I referenced to specialized film-music sites.
For number 12 there for example one interview (1 hour long) that was a full career spanning one, with loads of biographical information. But I included that (somebody's suggestion on the live chat) as a "further reading" link. But it could be a reference to all major bio data in the article. I don't think is great to reference 10 times in the article to the same ref....Then again, you have to listen to the 1 hour interview to find the information (it's in Spanish)...
But thanks for reassuring me that the tone is ok, will look for help about the way to reflect the notability from the references into the article text...
Cheers Vicpaz (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 9 November 2023 review of submission by PinneyFowke

[edit]

I understand the comments that have been made.

2) I think I have misunderstood how to use Links and References, and included a number of them the wrong way round. I need help: a) To ensure where I should be using Links, and that they are correctly inserted b) To move some citations from Links to References and c) To make sure I type in References in the correct format. I have just included the internet URLs

2) I accept the comment about being a 'connected person', but have borne in mind that the structure of any entry needs to comply with the standards required, and am happy to have this considered, and expected this would be the case.

Thank you 

 PinneyFowke (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is inadvisable and highly discouraged(though not forbidden) to write about ourselves at all, please read the autobiography policy(as well as an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing).
If you wish to proceed, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 9 November 2023 review of submission by OkraKemp

[edit]

The last reviewer of my article removed an entire paragraph of content, not just references as they state. Is that allowed? Can you direct me in finding the original content that is now missing? OkraKemp (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OkraKemp Please examine their edit. Unless I am mistaken, Mcmatter has done precisely what they said. All prior versions are available to all in the history tab, except in exceptional circumstances.
I have flagged that I cannot find your declaration under WP:PAIDanywhere. I can find a use of {{Connected contributor}} at Draft talk:Okra Energy. Istead you need to deploy {{paid}} with parameters filled out on your User page, and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on the article talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OkraKemp I did remove entire paragraphs in this edit, because they were off topic. We have an article on LNG if the reader wishes to know more on that topic, they can click on the link to that article. This draft is supposed to be on Okra Energy not LNG. Stick to the facts of the company and base it on what others have stated about the company in reliable source. As for the question is that allowed? Absolutely, no one owns any particular draft or its content. My edits were to help assist in guiding you to a better draft. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Craigmateo

[edit]

Advice needed on how this article could be adjusted to be accepted. I've removed biased language and added 3rd party citations. I'm having trouble understanding that it's not a notable enough topic. Craigmateo (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigmateo Please start by approaching the editor who rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Kimbamy

[edit]

Hello, I translated this article from the italian one and I added some more references. I think it is complete enough. Can you helpe me understanding what is missing, maybe with an example? Kimbamy (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 5.101.23.224

[edit]

Why are the sources presented not suitable? The authors of the books are well-known scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, VK is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content so should not used. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are links not to VK, but to PDF versions of books written by famous Soviet scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

[edit]

What exactly do I need to update to ensure I get published :) NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I list pages that I am messaged as external links or autobiographical links should not be on the wiki at all? NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Roddy Quezada Granados

[edit]

As a representative and unbiased individual who has professional knowledge of Doreen, I have created this draft with original content and photos for which I obtained her permission to use. I'm puzzled by the rejection of this draft and some guidance would be greatly appreciated. Roddy Quezada Granados (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one cited source which is an interview so is a primary source and not independent. What she has said, written or created is not useful. What is needed are reliable secondary sources with no affiliation with her that have written about her (again not what she says, etc.) such as critical reviews of her work. Also, external hyperlinks do not belong in the body of the article. Almost everything under the "Works and Contributions" section is a hyperlink and they all appear to be mostly primary sources (production company, publisher, etc.) so not helpful. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Roddy Quezada Granados. S0091 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roddy Quezada Granados Pivtures are handled at Wikimedia Commons.mThey are upper deletion there. Visit c:COM:VRT and follow the instructions there, please. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

[edit]

Can someone help me with trying to resolve these issues in more detail:

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.

I don't see secondary sources that verify the article and prove notability, and the draft itself doesn't look very much like a proper Wikipedia biography.

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatalieMeisner Please be specific in the help you woudllike. This is, at the moment a plea for anything and everything. With recision, what abiut the comments you have acted here, is unclear to you. We can start from there.
Be aware that writing your autobiography is not a great idea. It is a rare person indeed who can be unbiased and impartial. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing about myself, I just named the account under the author so I can remember which account is for what information.
well I would like to start on what are the major issues with the writing. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I make it look more like a wikiepedia page NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner by summarizing what reputable sources have written about Meisner, own their own without any input by Meisner. Almost everything in the draft is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article which is why people writing about themselves or those close to them is so strongly discouraged here. Its rarely successful. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing this based on the author. I am not the author being written about - I accidentally named myself by the username. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Are you using multiple accounts? Please declare which you are using. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No this is my only account. I put my name as the username rather than the article name. This is my first time using Wikipedia NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner I suggest you change this name to another that is not Ms Meinser's. We have a rule: One person - one account. Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple will be your friend here. It is improper to appear to be adopting the person of Natalie Meisner.
Please make this your first priority 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have changed my username to my personal account name. Memeraj (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Thank you for requesting a name change.
With regard to the writing, please read WP:MOS. Put simply, we require dull-but-worthy prose, and for a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That should be sufficient to get you started. Work by gathering the references first, marshal the facts you intend to use into a storyboard for the draft, and only then write what the references say in your own words, without close paraphrasing. You will be amazed how different the end product is, so consider abandoning your existing words. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj pinging the correct user! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I fix the look of the wikipedia page... apparently it isnt looking like the proper way it should. Memeraj (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj HELP:YFA and WP:MOS should guide you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Likelihoodist

[edit]

I hope that you can provide clarification as to the reasons for this rejection as well as suggestions as to how my entry can be improved.

The stated reasons are as follows:

1. Does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a standard topic in epidemiologic statistics. As such, I would think that this would make my article notable. This topic is covered in many textbooks on epidemiology. This includes Gordis Epidemiology (ref 1 on my submitted page), which is a standard text that is widely used for teaching elementary epidemiology. Perhaps I should also have referenced Rothman et al.’s Modern Epidemiology (See reference 15 in the Wikipedia article entitled “Odds ratio”). Rothman is a renowned American epidemiologist (see the Wikipedia article entitled “Kenneth Rothman (epidemiologist)” Their text, which covers this topic, is arguably the most authoritative text on advanced epidemiology available today.

Wikipedia does have an article on Odds ratios, which covers odds ratios for independent case-control studies but does not mention odds ratios for matched studies. It also has an article entitled “McNemar’s test”, which describes a test of the association between two dichotomous variables in a matched study. This test is also used to test the hypothesis that the odds ratio from a matched case-control study equals one. However, this page does not mention odds ratios or derive the maximum likelihood estimate for this statistic from these studies. The lack of any entry on odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a notable omission from Wikipedia that I believe should be filled.

Would my article be improved by citing Rothman et al.?

2. In-depth entry

Celentano et al. (ref 1 on my submitted page), Rothman et al. and Breslow and Day all cover this topic in detail. Celentano et al. discuss calculating odds ratios from a matched-pairs case-control study on pages 251–253 and 290 – 291. They do not give a proof as to why this odds ratio estimate is correct. Rothman et al. cover this topic on pages 287 – 288 and reference Breslow and Day 1980 (ref 2 on my submitted page). Breslow and Day provide the derivation of the odds ratio from matched 2x2 tables that is given in my article.

Do I need to clarify that the derivation that I give in my article is due to Breslow and Day and not a proof that I thought of myself?

3. Reliable sources

The references that are given in my article are authoritative. As mentioned in his Wikipedia web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rothman_(epidemiologist) , Rothman is a professor of epidemiology at Boston University and a distinguished Fellow at RTI International. The fact that his text is cited by Wikipedia’s “Odds ratio” page speaks to the reliability of his textbook. (His coauthor Sander Greenland is also one of the world’s leading epidemiologists. See the Wikipedia page entitled “Sander Greenland”. N.E. Breslow and N.E. Day were/are renowned 20th century biostatisticians. See their Wikipedia pages entitled “Norman Breslow” and “Nick Day (statistician)”. Leon Gordis was a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In short, the references on odds ratios from matched case-control studies could not be more reliable.

4. Secondary source

I’m not sure how this criteria applies to a statistical methods page. I do reference the paper by McEvoy et al. that provides an interesting application of this method. 

What sort of secondary source would be helpful for my article?

5. Independent sources

All of my references are independent from me. My name is Bill Dupont (see https://www.vumc.org/biostatistics/person/william-d-dupont ). I am not a personal friend of any of the authors cited in my article or given above. Also I am not a co-author of any paper written with these scholars.

In summary I am puzzled as to why my article was rejected. It appears to meet the criteria for publication in Wikipedia and would be a worthwhile contribution to the pages that you have already published on epidemiologic methods. I would be most grateful for any advice that you can give me as to how to improve my article to make it suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

References

1. Celentano DD, Szklo M, Gordis L (2019). Gordis Epidemiology, Sixth Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. p. 149-177.

2. ^ Jump up to:a b Breslow, NE, Day, NE (1980). Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Vol. 1 - The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications. p. 162-189.

3. ^ Jump up to:a b McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, et al. (2005). "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study". BMJ. 331: 428. doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55.

4. Rothman, K. J.; Greenland, S.; Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-5564-1. 


Likelihoodist (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Likelihoodist There is truly no need to out yourself. "Independent" means "Inependent of the Subject"
You might approach the reviewer who declined it. They wish to see an increase in the references. For matters os science we need to be as sure as we can be that things are not fi=ringer hypotheses. References help a great deal here. Is there any coverage external to Academe? If so it is useful. If not, no matter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have tried to contact WikiOriginal-9 but have not yet received a reply. I am very much of a novice navigating Wikipedia so I may be looking in the wrong place. If he/she responds will it be here or should I be looking somewhere else?
It sounds like the major (only?) concern is insufficient references. I can certainly add more references to text books that discuss this topic or papers that use it in their research. Would you advise me to do this and see how the reviewer responds or should I wait for more explicit instructions about the concerns about the references that I have given? Likelihoodist (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_9&oldid=1185186427"