User talk:SwinburneMel/sandbox

Initial comments

Good evening, SwinburneMel. Thanks for being willing to open the discussion.

First, let's reset expectations. Let's take as an example Jack Dongarra, someone from my own field (and an all around good guy). According to his Google Scholar Profile, his work has been cited 66,000+ times. He has authored or co-authored >40 peer-reviewed publications so far this year.

His wikipedia article has three paragraphs. Only one award is mentioned. None of his papers are listed. None of his patents are listed. None of his media appearances are listed.

This is an excellent example of a biographical article of an academic. It's short, gives the highlights and only the highlights, and has plenty of supporting documentation. The impression you want to leave with the reader is that only a handful of highlights have been listed, and there's plenty more where they came from. For articles where there isn't as much to say, new editors will understandably try to include everything because they're afraid that a short article looks like an insignificant article. The reverse is true: putting in everything tells the reader there's nothing else.

So my first comment to you is: rewrite this to look like Dongarra's article. Don't worry about the "polemic"; we can deal with that later. What I'd like to see now is a one paragraph introduction, a one paragraph summary of the educational background, and a one paragraph summary of what Cuero is known for. Don't worry about citations yet. Don't worry about grammar or polishing sentences. I'm mostly interested in what you think should go into those three paragraphs.

If you prefer, I can propose a draft, but since you know more about the subject than I do you're probably the better person to do this.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lesser Cartographies. Sometimes to compare research is a little complicated . A robotic researcher, who publish an article per year can not be compare with a researcher in computer science. sometimes a Dr can not be compare with a professor. Some researchers don't have PhD students or sometimes don't like to have credit by the research of their students. I admit is complicated. I did some changes i wait for your comments to add the references. The page know is more simple and neutral. and the research is only the principal last research about synthetic biological UV-light blockers.SwinburneMel (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi SwinburneMel. I must tell you, there are several robotics| researchers who are computer scientists. A huge part of robotics IS computer science, and the way research is done in both areas is very similar, if not the same. But aside from the examples, the argument you wrote is not relevant to the last thing asked by Lesser Cartographies. Can you provide a short, concise, paragraph that describes the trajectory of Dr. Cuero and his most important work? Juancamilogamboa (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SwinburneMel: Nice work on the first draft. A few quick questions (go ahead and answer them here, not in the draft):

• Where is Dr. Cuero currently employed?
• What are the titles of the self motivation books?
• What citations to you have for the NASA collaboration?

Juancamilogamboa: Hang on, this is just a first draft. There will be many more.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Where is Dr. Cuero currently employed?

I'm going to have to write him an email.

• What are the titles of the self motivation books?

La orfandad de la nueva generación Cómo ser creativo para triunfar De Buenaventura a la NASA

• What citations to you have for the NASA collaboration?

linkSwinburneMel (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)