Science Talk

Rheumatoid arthritis

I have just reviewed your additions to rheumatoid arthritis. Could I please point out to you that we should not be citing primary research articles, but rather use secondary sources - refer to WP:MEDRS for details. The section you have added is really disproportionately long, but I thought that I should simply request that you shorten it rather than remove the whole lot. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello Jfdwolff,

Thanks for your quick response!

I agree that the section might be too long - I will shorten it.

I also agree that it is Wikipedia's policy to prefer secondary sources over primary ones whenever available. However, most references on rheumatoid arthritis are primary ones as far as I have seen. Or do you refer to scientific reviews ?

I replied to you here, but maybe we should continue on the RA discussion page if necessity arises?

Hippo99 (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Allenby Booth

I arrived at Booth's article because it didn't have a living parameter in the biography banner...

While the speedy delete has been removed, it is still a candidate for deletion in the future because it may not meet the general nobility guidelines. May I offer some suggestions.

1) Add where/when he went to get his PhD and DSc and emphasize these degrees while removing the BA and MA. It is not necessary, but I also like to know more about the person... where/when were they born, any achievements while growing up?

2) Expand on what is and why conditioned satiety is important in Booth's article... atleast a few more sentences. I have no idea why it is important and why that makes Booth important from reading Booth's article.

3) Remove the "146 entries on PubMed" sentence. I have half a dozen publications in very important science journals. My faculty adviser had over 200 publications. Problem is, none of them are really notable and my faculty adviser isn't notable either. Number of publications doesn't make you notable, it is what "discoveries" were made in those publications. Einstein won the Noble Prize for work done from his first published article.

4) Could you write the last two sentences in "English". The average reader wouldn't have a clue on what it says and why it is important.

5) List some of his most important papers in the article.

6) Don't use his web page bio as a reference. That is not a proper reference... Can't use primary references. List it as an external link.

7) As to why the ice hockey player and football manager should be in Wikipedia. It's not a matter of if they are more/less notable than Booth. They reached the top of their field. The hockey player was in the top hockey league in the world. Show in the article why Booth is one of the top scientists in his field.

Give me a yell if you need help or have questions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David A. Booth

The article David A. Booth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable person

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David A. Booth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David A. Booth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Booth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Scopus logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Scopus logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]