Talk:Roger Gosden

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 11 February 2017 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Physiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of reproduction.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Janweh64 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Jamestowne Bookworks on behalf of Roger Gosden. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Edit 1 Edits 2 Edits 3 Edits 4

COI written article[edit]

In spite of my efforts to avoid the issues contained in the maintenance tags placed on this article, it is possible I may have failed. I have a COI clearly declared above. I ask for a review by an independent editor of the content contained with consideration of the following responses:

"press release:" it is very difficult to write about such person without the article sounding promotional. For example, Gosden et al. (1994) has been cited in 1069 published scientific journals. Now that is inappropriate promotional tone. Consider this reference, a journal article written by the editor of Molecular Human Reproduction. Please make edits to avoid such tone.
"self-published sources" according to WP:BLPSPS these are clearly permitted as they are written by the subject. Primary sources are only used to in accordance with WP:BLPSELFPUB and only to support simple facts like where he worked, or that such and such was published, not about the significance of said work. For those secondary sources are used.
"encyclopedic tone": this is perhaps an unintentional case of WP:TAGBOMB as the intended issue is covered by "press release." The article is written in formal tone and avoids jargon as much as possible in accordance with MOS:JARGON. Therefore this tag is completely inappropriate.

I will refrain from editing this article any further until a RfC review is completed. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate use of the RfC process. Please remove the RfC tag. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Can you support that statement by pointing to a policy or pointing to the correct avenue to employ. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are a means to resolve disputes when discussion on the talk page fails. You have not even begun to discuss how to resolve the tags. This is WP:DR 101. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Done.— አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no serious policy violations, as (1) I accepted it in satisfying the applicable standards, (2) the stated COI is clear and has been mentioned, (3) the article contains suitable information and (4) Self-published sources are in fact what's used in these articles as thousands of articles for other professors and scientists will show, and, we've established this for it, such as WP:PROF. I will say that I'm particularly puzzled by the "Tone" tag as there's no absolute concerns, given the article is factual and encyclopedia-formatted. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As aforementioned, this isn't what the RfC process is used for but anyways, I read the article and it seems to be pretty neutral. To make edits without a COI, you can request for the edit to be made by Template:Request edit on the talk page. Without mentioning notability or quality, the article is not concerning. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit per discussion above[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Request that all maintenance tags (except orphan) be removed as per discussion above:

Tone is acceptable
"self-published sources" are used according to WP:BLPSPS
COI was clearly declared and mentioned therefore tag is unnecessary unless there are other significant problems. Also, the user did not state any reasons in this talk page as required to do so in the documentation of the Template:COI. I have contacted the user with received no reply.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were incorrect; there were several significant problems. I have fixed them and removed the tags. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Thank you. However, I do not believe there are any sources or any material in the body of the article to support the claim that Gosden was involved in uterus transplantation. Just because Wikipedia lacks coverage of the subject of ovarian tansplantation does not mean we should just append the uterus for good measure to cover up Wikipedia's failings. It should be red linked per WP:REDYES.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillier ref says: "Roger's interests extend beyond the ovary, which is why the series also benefits from the Diaz-Garcia et al. article on uterine transplantation. " See also PMID 18728099. See also diff Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one wonders why there is no article about Lucinda Veeck. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Jytdog, but I don't think you have fixed the problems here, though you've certainly made some major improvements. This still reads like a puff-piece, and is not yet a neutral and encyclopaedic article. Why is he called a "pioneer" in the lead? Why is his book business mentioned as if it were in any way important? Why don't we stick a yellow banner across the top of the page reading "This page is sponsored by Jamestown Bookworks"? I'd like to suggest that you restore the maintenance tags until the article has been cleaned up or rewritten. This person is clearly notable, and deserves a better page than this.

This is perfect example of why we don't need or want paid editing – the paid editor puts a mass of inappropriate content here, volunteer editors spend time and effort on making it suitable for the project – and the original author collects the fee. In almost every case, it'd be both better and quicker to nuke the paid content and write a proper page from scratch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I spent a lot of time on this, and read a lot. Gosden did make major contributions in ovarian transplantation. We can take out "pioneer" and the mention of the book pubishing business in the lead, which i have done. What else, specifically, do you think is bad? Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog and Justlettersandnumbers: Why not remove the sentence on Jamestown Bookworks in Personal Life as well? This is not sarcastic. I am requesting simply removing it if the concern is promo, the subject could not care any less.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Celmatix, Inc. and the sentence on "published author" in Roger_Gosden#Scientific_career as well. They are not essential to his notability.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]