Jump to content

User talk:Sascha Gruss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!

Hello, Sascha Gruss, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Automated Pain Recognition (February 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.
AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Sascha Gruss! 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! AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Automated Pain Recognition, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Automated Pain Recognition and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Automated Pain Recognition during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 94rain Talk 06:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hello, Sascha Gruss

Thank you for creating Automated Pain Recognition.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Per Wikipedia's policy against original research, information should only be added to articles if it can be cited to a secondary source. For up and coming fields of research such as APR, this may mean that we can't add information about certain aspects of the topic because proper secondary sources don't exist yet. Please consider paring back the article so as to remove information that cannot be cited to reliable, secondary sources

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Hello Rosguill, thank you very much for your comment. We will try our best to improve this article with reliable, secondary sources. I assume you refer to the references [7][8][10-15]? If so: [7] & [8] : I will check other sources [10] : This is just a survey about existing methods and data bases. This should be fine? [11-15] : These are papers about pain data bases and where and how to get it. All data bases are free available for almost anyone. Should I remove it (or put the URLs to the data bases if they exist)? Again, thank you very much, Sascha. Sascha Gruss (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Gruss, I don't have time right now to review everything in detail, but honestly I'm most concerned about the information that isn't backed up by any footnotes at the moment (and particularly the "Potential applications" section which I removed). Glancing at the claims that 7 and 8 are supporting, I think I'd actually be ok with keeping the citation as long as the wording is rephrased from "Measurements usually focus..." to "Measurements can include" or something else along those lines. The main remaining set of sourced claims that strike me as a bit problematic is the list of databases, since the cited papers seem to for the most part introduce those databases. We shouldn't mention such work except after it has been analyzed by additional sources. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I've made the changes, added one more source and linked it to the german page. Hope this is fine now. Sascha Gruss (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks improved. There's still a few paragraphs with no footnotes that could probably use a citation or two, but I think that my concerns have been addressed enough to remove the OR tag. signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]