User talk:48JCL
 |
Women in Red July 2024[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Welcome to the DCWC![edit]
Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, 48JCL! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:
- Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
- Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
- Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
- New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
- Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!
On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:Dikgosis on the 3 dikgosi monument.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Dikgosis on the 3 dikgosi monument.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting help to better understand which type of sources would be best suited when creating a new article.
Dear 48JCL,
thank you so much for reviewing this one – and I am admittedly new here. I am a researcher in the DBS field and can say with confidence that Dr. Lozano is among the top five most famous people in this field, most cited neurosurgeon world-wide, etc. In your assessment, please also see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) – in which he would check many of the boxes. To name one example, the Olivecrona award is the highest honor given to neurosurgeons, world-wide.
I also did include many references that cover his work prominently (e.g. the article in the independent). But as an academic, the weight on news-stories is not as high as e.g. awards, achievements, contributions to the field, etc.
To help me better understand things: Would you be able to give some examples of sources that would convince you more that Dr. Lozano is a highly notable neuroscientist? Would news-stories about him be better or citation records? Would scientific articles help? For his case, everything is available (he even inspired a Dr. House episode). Since I'm new, I just don't know what you would find most convincing.
Thank you so much for further help on this!
Defaultmode42 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Defaultmode42, he may be notable, but the article does not show so. It has a lot of WP:PEACOCK words in a promotional tone. Do you have a conflict of interest? Are you being paid to edit? Also, try not to use so many primary sources. You source stuff he wrote, which is not appropriate and should be in a seperate "Works" section. 48JCL 01:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is very helpful! I will try my best to revise as requested. I can confirm I am neither paid to edit (I am an associate professor with little time myself...) nor do I have a conflict of interest. Andres is an esteemed colleague and I was surprised to see he doesnt have a wikipedia page. Again, he is ~#1 of the entire DBS field. He was first to do in human DBS for depression and first to do DBS for Alzheimer's Disease. I very much believe this alone should qualify him to be of public interest. So I thought to take up the task and learn how I can contribute. Thanks again for your help, will try my best! Andy Defaultmode42 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @48JCL – I have now resubmitted the article and tried my best to find the remaining sections you referred to w/ WP:PEACOCK wording. I hope I could catch them all. I also made sure that I dont cite "stuff he wrote" (only in the section about his most recent papers). I do refer to his google scholar and research.com pages, which are typical ways we assess scientific impact in the field. I hope that is okay, but of course happy to remove. I added a CNN link about his work in depression and an NPR story covering his work in Alzheimer's. Hopefully that helps? Thank you so much for your thought on this. Andy Defaultmode42 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Defaultmode42 by calling him a colleague, it is clear you do have a conflict of interest. These sources seem to help, however the tone of the article is just a bit un-encyclopedic. I'm sure he could be accepted, you just need to take another person's biography as an example. 48JCL 14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @48JCL! You raise an interesting point. I would call any scientist in my field a colleague. To be clear: we are not at the same university or so (I am in Boston, he is in Toronto). If working in a similar field already gives me a conflict, who would you argue should write the articles about scientists (if not people from their field)? I.e., who would have the expertise to be able to judge their work?
- Again, super new here, but as a scientist, I find it pretty surprising that the impact / notability of academics seems to be measured by e.g. news articles about them. It is opposed to what the WP: Notability (Academics) says and it is opposed to how scientific impact is typically measured in the field (which would rather be based on publications or other metrics such as h-index/citations etc – these have been criticized, too, but news coverage is typically not better).
- I will further work on making the article more encyclopedia like – but would say that articles seem to differ a lot. For instance, the article about Michael Fox is very brief, while the one about Ali Rezai bursts of details. I tried to make the present one a bit middle-ground between the two of them. Would you happen to be able to point me to an article you like (optimally about a scientist)? That would be of tremendous help. Thank you! Defaultmode42 (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Defaultmode42, Alright, seems like you don't have a conflict of interest. By the way, make sure to read WP:BIO so you understand the sourcing requirements. Cheers -- 48JCL 17:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Defaultmode42 by calling him a colleague, it is clear you do have a conflict of interest. These sources seem to help, however the tone of the article is just a bit un-encyclopedic. I'm sure he could be accepted, you just need to take another person's biography as an example. 48JCL 14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @48JCL – I have now resubmitted the article and tried my best to find the remaining sections you referred to w/ WP:PEACOCK wording. I hope I could catch them all. I also made sure that I dont cite "stuff he wrote" (only in the section about his most recent papers). I do refer to his google scholar and research.com pages, which are typical ways we assess scientific impact in the field. I hope that is okay, but of course happy to remove. I added a CNN link about his work in depression and an NPR story covering his work in Alzheimer's. Hopefully that helps? Thank you so much for your thought on this. Andy Defaultmode42 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is very helpful! I will try my best to revise as requested. I can confirm I am neither paid to edit (I am an associate professor with little time myself...) nor do I have a conflict of interest. Andres is an esteemed colleague and I was surprised to see he doesnt have a wikipedia page. Again, he is ~#1 of the entire DBS field. He was first to do in human DBS for depression and first to do DBS for Alzheimer's Disease. I very much believe this alone should qualify him to be of public interest. So I thought to take up the task and learn how I can contribute. Thanks again for your help, will try my best! Andy Defaultmode42 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts about the Botswana article[edit]
I saw your nomination for the Botswana article, and I figured I'd share my thoughts on it. Right now, I'm hoping to get all of its most important sub-articles to GA. Right now we're at:
Culture of Botswana- Demographics of Botswana
Economy of Botswana- Geography of Botswana
- History of Botswana
Politics of Botswana
My plan is to get each of these to GA one at a time, and then to rework each section of the main country's article based on what I find working on these sub-articles. I've already finished the Politics article, and I rewrote most of the politics section in Botswana's article to reflect it a while back. I'm pretty much good to go on the history article. Once it's in a state I'm happy with, I want to rewrite the main article's history section using those same sources, because right now it's really unbalanced and needs some work. Since you're also interested in this article, I wondered if you had any thoughts on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to get work done on Flag of Botswana in my sandbox currently, I may work on these later. I'm editing the lower tier pages because I don't have access to the Wikipedia Library. Once I get it, I'll try to work on these higher tier articles. 48JCL 14:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Burkina Faso at the 2016 Summer Paralympics[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burkina Faso at the 2016 Summer Paralympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)