User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus

Archives: Index • 2023, 2024 • Barnstars Archiving period: 14 days

Click here to leave me a new message. Let me know if I've done something silly.

Hi Marcus - thanks very much for reviewing Draft:Jasper Harris (musician). I appreciate you spending the time and I’ve made some changes based on your feedback.

You pointed out that the Variety article I cited for the first of Harris’s two Grammy nominations only said he worked on Kendrick Lamar’s “Family Ties,” which won a Grammy. This is correct. But the Wikipedia sentence has two citations - the second is directly to the website of the Grammys. The same is true for the following sentence, which also provides a source providing context to Jasper’s work on the Grammy nominated album of the year, and is followed by a second citation directly to the Grammy website.

If you go to the draft, you’ll see that in order to address your concerns, I have restructured the sentences so that the context language does not mention the Grammy awards and the Grammy award language cites directly to the Grammy website.

In your comment, you don’t mention that I cited directly to the Grammy website to confirm his nominations when you say you can’t tell if he had actually been nominated. Perhaps this is an oversight? I hope you will agree that the Grammy website is a proper use of WP:Primary since the source is independent of Harris, is the most credible source possible concerning Grammy nominations, and, as per policy, is used to represent “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge”.

I must disagree with your statement in your note that “A lot of the sources cited are interviews and therefor not independent.” There is only one Q&A among the sources and I was careful to only use it to cite facts reported by the journalist in the three paragraph lead, before the Q&A begins. I took nothing from the Q&A itself. And there are no other sources in Q&A format.

Of course he was also interviewed as part of other, standard articles, but I assume that’s not what you meant – journalists always interview the subjects of articles and then use their judgment to determine what quotes and facts to include in those articles. There’s no prohibition on the use of articles that interview biographical subjects as that would eliminate almost all journalism from Wikipedia.

I thought you might want to do a fresh review before I submit this again for reconsideration. I have left a comment on top of the page that reviews the points above. I’ll resubmit in a couple of days if I haven’t heard back.

Thanks again for taking the time to do a review and for considering taking another look.Garfield075 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garfield075, the article has been resubmitted on your behalf. Thanks for taking the time to address the concerns, but there is no need to give me a preemptive warning to change my mind on the first review I've completed. It is a part of the AFC record and if another reviewer has a different opinion of my own they are welcome to accept it. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MicrobiologyMarcus, we seem to have had an edit conflict on this page. Did you mean to remove the CSD template I'd put on there? I maintain that the title seems like a rather implausible phrase to refer to its target. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @TechnoSquirrel69, I did; my apologies I should have made that more clear in the edit summary. Although looking at the page history now, I will say that I'm surprised I didn't get a second edit conflict warning when I went ahead with the edit.

My good faith reading of the author's edits suggested to me that they probably meant to submit a redirect for creation, so my intention was to use the AFCH to leave the redirect declination notice at the top and the declination on the authors talk page. My reasons for this are two fold, of course AFC/R requires you to submit sources if applicable, but also I didn't think it would meet R3 based on the fact that it would also have a {{submit}} template on it.

If you think the page should still be speedied, by all means re-tag it, but that was my thinking. Thanks for the note, hope that helps — microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what it's worth, I agree: if I saw that in the mainspace without the AFC wiki project on the talk page, I would agree on a speedy tag placement or a nom to RfD. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications! I think I'll leave it as is now; in any case, our edits to the page now make its history substantive enough to be disqualified from that speedy deletion criterion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus: Dear Marcus, Thank you for your comments on the LAPaL article. This is the first time I am editing a wikipedia article although I have several experience of writing scientific journals. I understand that the nonpromotional policy of wikipedia. I will edit the content based on that but I am still not sure about the references. I have given 11 references however I understand that something is wrong with the references. I would really appreciate if you could direct me the references which are in conflict with Wikipedia so that I can replace those (possibly).

Thank you for your cooperation

Best Wishes Dr Prajith Venkatasubramanian University of Liverpool Great Britian Prajithkanna (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prajithkanna, in general, writing a Wikipedia article requires that you only describe what has been said in reliable, secondary sources using only neutral language. You cannot conduct any original research and you cannot try to advocate or promote a topic, see WP:NOT. It is very different than scientific writing article where you may be trying to argue a point or back up your research with previously published sources—I am sympathetic to this argument, as it is a different style of writing that requires forming a different habit or instinct.

As an organization, the topic will need to demonstrate that it has been the topic of coverage that meets the aforementioned requirements, review WP:NCORP for more details.

In § Database highlights and added value, this is not written in summary style; this language could be taken right out of a promotional pamphlet or commercial for the product.

The § Funding and collaboration section contains external links which are inappropriate to be used inline in the article. You will note that was one of the comments I left in my original review.

For the section § Conclusion, Wikipedia articles do not typically have conclusion sections because—as mentioned earlier—articles are not argumentative essays or papers. You will not find these sections on many articles; it is generally a good idea to familiarise yourself with the project before writing your first article lest someone accuse you of only being here to promote something.

You have mentioned your affiliation with the University of Liverpool, one of the affiliates of the topic of the draft. Please review WP:PAID and WP:COI and make any necessary declarations on your user page.

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi Marcus, I am just learning to create wikkipaedia articles. Please correct me where I am wrong Vivek.feels (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vivek.feels, I can only offer generic advice to generic questions. I would suggest you review Help:Your first article. Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for updating my info box image, and for your support of new editors. Much appreciated :-) Marilyn Fowles (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marilyn Fowles and thanks for your note! You're welcome, I'm more than happy to help; someone helped me by properly formatting my first draft. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying @MicrobiologyMarcus. I'm looking forward to my first draft article being reviewed - at least I know the info box is in good shape! All the best. Marilyn Fowles (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, Muthamilselvi, my username is "TheValorWomanMTS", have edited my own Wikipedia article for personal purposes and have not received any compensation for these edits. My edits are intended to improve the accuracy and quality of the information presented. please help me resolve the issue and redirect my article to main space. TheValorWomanMTS (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]