User talk:Et Cité

July 2020[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:AcademiaNet, from its old location at User:Et Cité/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: AcademiaNet (September 16)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:AcademiaNet and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:AcademiaNet, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SL93 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Et Cité! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SL93 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:AcademiaNet[edit]

Hello, Et Cité. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:AcademiaNet, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AcademiaNet[edit]

Hi Et Cité: I took a look at your draft and have a couple of suggestions. First remove "excellent" from your lede. That sounds like puffery. Saying it's a database of women scientists will be enough. Second, try to find independent sources talking about the database. Has its existence been covered by newspapers? Scientific journals? Those are the kind of sources we're looking for. Ping me if you have any questions! MeegsC (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: AcademiaNet has been accepted[edit]

AcademiaNet, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North–South research partnerships[edit]

Hey Et Cité,

Just saw your article North-South research partnerships; thanks for contributing! I have marked the article as reviewed.

The article feels quite like an essay right now, mainly because it extracts a lot of information on "North–South" partnerships from articles/papers which don't specifically deal with such partnerships as a whole. For example, it says North-South research is mostly funded in the form of research projects, but the cited source deals only with Africa, and doesn't seem to state anything like "mostly in the form of research projects". (Every time the word project is mentioned it seems to be in a hypothetical context.)

One important issue I have is actually mentioned in the article itself: By using the term North-South research collaboration, the perception of a North-South divide is further sharpened. The term "North–South" seems a bit reductionist and it's not a good idea to apply that label to all of research partnerships between the UK and African countries, between the US and South Africa, and between Moldova and Singapore—these are all "North–South" partnerships, but ultimately very different. I'd suggest individual articles describing partnerships for African countries, or whatever particular country or set of countries. That avoids issues of synthesis, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. In any case, I do think this overall topic is notable; I just think it could be presented in a better manner. Please let me know your thoughts! Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ovinus,

Thank you very much for your feedback. The literature we have built our article on has not been perfect. We have conducted a further literature search to improve the literatures. Now there is much more dealing with the topic per se and not only with specific aspects of it.

There are indeed great differences in different North-South research partnerships, between different countries, in different scientific fields, between basic research and applied research etc. However there are some features that are common of most research partnerships between research institutions from high-income countries and research institutions from low-income countries. These common features are described in the Wikipedia entry on North-South research collaboration. The term North-South research collaboration is the most commonly used term worldwide to describe this kind of research collaborations (even though the term is far from being perfect, so far, no better term has been established). A large community of scientists and development practitioners is dealing with such research partnerships and their contribution to sustainable development. Et Cité (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]