User talk:Bobby Cohn
|
 | Archives and other talk page banners. | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Thanks, and few questions..
[edit]Hi Bobby
Thank you for moving my draft article Draft:Gamma ray tomography - Wikipedia from my sandbox the right place.
A couple of questions:
-I do have some COI, among them citing myself and being affiliated with the institution where most of the research on the topic have been done. I have added a declaration of COI on the talk page of the article. I am, however, not sure if this is done correctly or sufficiently.
-Where do I go from here? Are there steps that I should take or do I just wait? Are there in your opinion something lacking with article that should be addressed immediately to ensure limited hold ups?
Being a newbie I do appreciate any guidance
-Stian Stian.H.Stavland (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Stian, welcome to Wikipedia! I left the {{COI}} template as an indicator because of the citations in the article, but I will swap that out for an AFC comment template instead, used to convey messages to authors and other reviewers more clearly while still in the draft space.
- Thank you for extensively declaring your COI on the talk page. I don't expect there to be an issue but sometimes we on Wikipedia are worried about people spamming their own work and links through the project. You may read more about it at WP:SELFCITE. I don't see any glaringly large issues with the article, but I will leave it for someone more comfortable with the topic area to review it. I'll swap out the {{COI}} tag for a comment mentioning our discussion here.
- Because we're Wikipedians, of course we have many more policies, guidelines, and essays about writing about your own work that you may find relevant if you'd like to do more reading on how the project operates in the backend, you can find them in the Wikipedia: and Help: namespaces. You might find Wikipedia:Expert editors and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics to be relevant to your work.
- To answer your questions:
- You have done so adequately (thank you again). Just make sure to sign your posts: if you're writing in the source editor, you do so by using four tildes (
~~~~); and if you are using the Add topic or the Reply tool, the software will do it for you automatically. - There's nothing further that needs to be done (or that could frankly speed up a review, unfortunately there is a backlog). Neither physics nor math are my strong suit on Wikipedia so I won't be able to identify any issues with the article, aside from the basic copy editing that I've done to bring the article more in line with our WP:Manual of Style. I've watchlisted the page, so I'll try and stay abreast if its status changes.
- When the review does happen, if it is declined, the reviewer should be able to provide more specific feedback, but if not you may always ask them on their talk page as you did mine. Addressing issues quickly will help get the draft article back in the queue. Some reviewers may re-review drafts on requests, especially if the issue they identify is small that can be easily remedied, but some reviewers will not re-review drafts at all.
- If you're looking for more things to do on the project and you want to contribute further, we greatly appreciate expert contributions! Feel free to write more about your own work or topics that need attention at WP:WikiProject Physics, it looks like they maintain a list of "Pages needing attention". You might also want to create and edit your user page located at User:Stian.H.Stavland. You can write about your current and former affiliations and credentials the (and also introduce yourself) and simplify the length of the COI disclaimer you choose to leave on each article talk page.
- You have done so adequately (thank you again). Just make sure to sign your posts: if you're writing in the source editor, you do so by using four tildes (
- Thank you again for your contributions! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have.
- All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Stian.H.Stavland quick followup, I did swap out the {{COI}} tag for a more explanatory comment. I'll also explain what I mean by notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. For an article to exist on Wikipedia, we want it to be covered by sources secondary to the topic. This is a little easier to define for a biography of a person or an event than an abstract scientific topic, but if there are papers where they don't research the topic but rather (1) cite it or use it in their analysis or (2) discuss the implications of it or discuss the potential of its use cases without it being the topic of the research in that paper, then in my opinion that would make this much more clearly notable. The reason I say that these should come from papers where the topic isn't the subject of the research is because papers that are doing the research on the topic will tend to "promote" it (for lack of a better word) to sell its usefulness to reviewers. Secondary and independent papers discuss it don't necessarily have the same incentives. It's the same reason a lot of our articles on films have a "Reception" section, it shows that people are talking about it, therefore it's notable. These don't necessarily have to come from articles not written by your lab/institution but all the better if they do (in my opinion). Sorry for the wall of text, but this did come to mind as an answer to your question on 'is there anything else you can do'. Of course I thought of it after I sent my first response. Hope that helps, but let me know if you have a follow up. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well, now I'm re-reading "§ Applications in Multiphase Flow Research" and I'm thinking you may have? Unfortunately, it's physics so it's all Greek to me, so apologies if I'm giving you redundant advice. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Stian.H.Stavland quick followup, I did swap out the {{COI}} tag for a more explanatory comment. I'll also explain what I mean by notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. For an article to exist on Wikipedia, we want it to be covered by sources secondary to the topic. This is a little easier to define for a biography of a person or an event than an abstract scientific topic, but if there are papers where they don't research the topic but rather (1) cite it or use it in their analysis or (2) discuss the implications of it or discuss the potential of its use cases without it being the topic of the research in that paper, then in my opinion that would make this much more clearly notable. The reason I say that these should come from papers where the topic isn't the subject of the research is because papers that are doing the research on the topic will tend to "promote" it (for lack of a better word) to sell its usefulness to reviewers. Secondary and independent papers discuss it don't necessarily have the same incentives. It's the same reason a lot of our articles on films have a "Reception" section, it shows that people are talking about it, therefore it's notable. These don't necessarily have to come from articles not written by your lab/institution but all the better if they do (in my opinion). Sorry for the wall of text, but this did come to mind as an answer to your question on 'is there anything else you can do'. Of course I thought of it after I sent my first response. Hope that helps, but let me know if you have a follow up. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi Bobby! Thank you so much for your review and appreciate the directions you provided for me to help better the chances of approval. I believe I have gone in and reformatted the copy to be more of an encyclopedia. Can you please review it again and let me know if i have addressed all the feedback you shared?
If there is something specific you have a question about please don't hesitate to let me know! LegacyByIO (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @LegacyByIO, you still have a lot of sections that are unreferenced and it still reads highly promotional to me. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewing pages
[edit]Hello,
Could you review the following pages-
Arhopala camdana Mitsingh (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Some of those were already done. I tend not to make reviews on request a habit, but they were quick and easy stubs. Cheers. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mitsingh (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Could you also review these - Arhopala zeta
- Arhopala alkisthenes Mitsingh (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Mitsingh, when you're moving items out of the draft space, you can remove the AFC templates as I've done here. Also note that stub spacing no longer requires two blank lines since December 2024, per WP:STUBSPACING. It is also good practice to create the associated talk page and sort the articles into WikiProjects. WP:RATER (easily installed with User:Enterprisey/script-installer) will do that for you and you can assign it to the Lepidoptera WikiProject. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mitsingh (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bobby Cohn It's a pleasure to talk to you. I'd like to ask for your time to take a look at an article I'm seeking to publish calledDraft:Davi Santiago. If you can help me with this review and publish it, please know that I am very grateful. Etlevs (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Etlevs, nice to e-meet you. In my opinion the draft reads very promotionally and takes a lot of words to say very little. See WP:PEACOCK. Consider:
- which became a bestseller and underscored his early entry into literature.
- The easy PEACOCK realy applies here.
- and Opinião e Notícia covered his claim that publishing a book at 15 was once deemed impossible.
- So he claimed that something he did was impossible, and someone else wrote about his claim, and we're going to promote it? A little undue if you ask me.
- As a speaker, Davi conducts events throughout Brazil, sharing his experiences and inspiring young audiences.
- Again, a little promotional. I'm don't speak Portuguese and I'm not familiar with the publication but even if that was said, we should at least attribute it and not present it in Wiki-voice.
- His dynamic presence again, PEACOCK? If it has been said, attribute it ... has been noted by Criativa Online, which emphasized his ability to generate real results amid a competitive market.
- So grammatically, something funny has been done here. Again, if it is a quote, attribute it properly. Buuuut this almost makes is sound like the mere fact that Criativa Online covered his work is grounds for praise itself. A little too close to the sun on WP:No original research if we're reading into something that isn't there; and the ambiguity is suspect, but as Wikipedia editors we are tasked with assuming good faith.
- Furthermore, Surgiu highlighted that skeptics who doubted his potential were proven wrong.
- What? Again, if this is quoted praise, attribute it and let our readers decide for themselves.
- ABC Reporter stated that no other young individual has matched his accomplishments in entrepreneurship, literature, and leadership. Correio do Litoral detailed his financial success, noting that he amassed significant capital before age 15.
- Okay, this is how you actually attribute praise and not make reviewers raise their eyebrows. Good job. I'm not familiar with the reliability of either of these publications and again I don't speak the language, but this is how it should be done. That paragraphs mostly continues the same, however ...
- Ootimista covered an incident in which a critic unexpectedly requested an autograph, highlighting his cultural impact.
- Woah, WP:OR alert. As above.
- My 2¢. All the best. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- The pleasure is all mine, @Bobby Cohn! Well, I have done my best to follow your perfect guidance. Please feel free to check and I ask you to change anything that is necessary. Again, I tell you that I am eternally grateful. Etlevs (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)