Talk:Lanthanum aluminate-strontium titanate interface

Ethical references?

I'm just noting that user Zhiqiliu1 recently contributed to the article and added a bunch of references to his own papers. I don't think is ethical or in line with Wikipedia's policies. That said, the references are relevant and helpful, so I'm leaving them for now. I'm not sure what to do here. Leave a comment if you have some advice. Tedsanders (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

I just want to disclose a possible conflict of interest. I am a co-author of a paper I cited in the article (#19, He et. al.). It was the best source I knew. Tedsanders (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this article and thanks for disclosing your possible COI. I see no problem with citing ref 19. --Mark viking (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Reclass

Note I have reclassed this article to a C. I think it would be B class except for the lack of secondary sources. Except for the Arxiv-only papers and theses, the refs are solid, peer-reviewed papers. But all are primary. Are there any reviews out there about these interfaces? --Mark viking (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess there might be some secondary sources, like university press releases (e.g., http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/faster-transistors-physics-0513.html, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/pbandj.htm). There are also a few generally readable Nature and Science papers (e.g., http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090506/full/459028a.html). Are secondary sources preferable to primary sources? Tedsanders (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Are papers published in peer-reviewed journals preferred to papers on the arXiv? Sometimes papers get published to both, but I choose to link to the arXiv version because it's open access. Tedsanders (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

WP strongly prefers citations to reliable sources, see WP:RS for details. Peer-reviewed papers are considered more reliable than papers published only on Arxiv because they have undergone peer-review or scrutiny by folks independent of the research. While Arxiv tries to filter out crank papers, it's not a full peer review. If a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, by all means link to the Arxiv preprint as well. University press releases are generally not considered reliable, because there is no presumption of fact checking. Secondary sources are usually preferred over primary sources because they are independent parties discussing primary works. That independence helps WP editors write more neutral and well balanced articles by providing evaluation of primary sources. Please see WP:PRIMARY for policy on primary secondary and tertiary sources. Without secondary sources, it is easy to fall into the trap of editors performing synthesis of primary sources, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:SYNTH for why synthesis is considered bad. Sorry to throw these policy links at you, but you'll need to understand the basic concepts behind them if you want to take this article to GA status. --Mark viking (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be sorry at all. I'm a new editor and learning this is very helpful. Thanks a lot! Tedsanders (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)