Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Canberra/2014-08-14-Wikibomb
 | Australia: Canberra Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Wikibomb problems[edit]
I see significant problems with this wikibomb. In particular, the "have limited presence online" clause in this day and age translates more or less directly to "are not notable". I've checked a half-dozen or so drafts and articles so far, and all I've seen were very, very short on reliable independent sources (apparently the authors didn't bother to dig up offline sources if no good online sources were available), and some were so bizarrely promotional that I was tempted to tag them for speedy deletion. Take the following examples, none of which convey any meaningful information: X is a scientist at heart, who likes to be close to discovery and innovation as she believes this is to be the key to the future health discoveries. Discovery is the key to discovery? Who would have thought that? Y has a strong commitment to knowledge transfer and has been instrumental in the development of several courses. That's code for "Y has held several courses", right? Following her time overseas, where she gained her passion for mountains and for obtaining high quality scientific data ... - as opposed to a passion for obtaining low quality scientific data?
Furthermore, instances of copy-pasted content (including the "passion for mountains" sentence) are unfortunately common, sometimes necessitating the deletion of entire sections, if not articles, as copyright violations. I'd say a little more time should have been spent in explaining how to write a proper Wikipedia article, particularly such core policies and guidelines as WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:PROF, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and, of course, WP:COPYVIO. This will require a massive cleanup effort, and I hope those who organized the wikibomb are willing to participate in that effort. Huon (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
suggested places to find candidates for articles[edit]
I suggest that a different tactic is used to generate candidates for articles, because the current approach isn't working. I suggest that lists of award-winners, fellows of academic societies and higher doctorates be looked at. Other than that, looking for people with a high impact factor on http://scholar.google.co.nz/, a text book that's run to multiple editions or being widely covered as a 'first' (first X to get a Y degree, etc). There's also a template at User:Stuartyeates/sandbox that may be useful. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
General advice on writing science biographies[edit]
Since apparently those organizing the wikibomb have not done so, let me give a short summary of common issues that should be avoided:
- The Manual of Style says: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." In short, it's not Professor X, but just X.
- On the other hand, we should refer to persons by their surname, not their given name (with the possible exception of discussing the subject's family, to avoid ambiguity).
- Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as media coverage. The subject's faculty website, author profiles about her published by the publication that also published her writings, or private websites all are not considered independent. Wikipedia itself is not considered reliable and should not be cited as a reference (it's user-submitted content without any editorial oversight). Primary sources can be used to add uncontroversial details such as a birthdate, but they should not be the sole basis of large amounts of content or of claims that might be considered promotional. See also WP:BLPPRIMARY.
- Article content must be verifiable from the given sources. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons. If you can't find a reliable source for a statement, omit that statement.
- Avoid promotional phrases that convey no information whatsoever. I've given some examples above. Stuff like "is a scientist at heart" or "has a passion for obtaining high quality scientific data" tell the readers exactly nothing. "Her measurement of the X constant was three orders of magnitude more precise than previous measurements" - now that would be some hard facts.
- Avoid undue publication lists. Our articles on Emmy Noether or Marie Curie, a Featured Article and a Good Article respectively, do not have any publication lists, and I doubt the scientists that are the subjects of the wikibomb have done more significant work than Noether or Curie. My personal suggestion would be to at most discuss a few - no more than three to five - of the top publications, ideally with third-party sources discussing those publications and allowing us to summarize their impact.
I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
A request[edit]
Hi. I wikignome Orphaned articles and notice that most of these articles are orphans, meaning no other WP article links to them. The impact of this is that no-one can see your work as there aren't any links to it. After you publish, please see if you can help by linking other articles to your new page. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed articles[edit]
The following were created but have been deleted due to various problems, including copyright violations—editors have to use their own words when writing an article.