User talk:Logophile59

Welcome

Hello, Logophile59, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A page you started (Jean Vance) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jean Vance.

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

The article is currently overly dependent on citations to primary sources, in this case research papers that Vance has worked on. Viewed uncharitably, this is a form of original research, as you are making inferences about Vance and her work based on the content of the papers, rather than reporting the actual claims made in sources. It's often hard to find secondary sources about important academics, so I wouldn't stress out about this too much, but even citations to faculty profiles on university websites would be preferable to citing Vance's research for most of the examples in the article.

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 23:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks. I was aware of this as an issue but as you say, secondary sources (especially for work done so long ago and unappreciated in its time) are hard to find. I'll keep looking.

My intention in including the primary references was to flesh out the story told in the few secondary sources I could find, i.e. to add (hopefully) uncontroversial detail. I was under the impression that this is acceptable, though perhaps not to the degree I've done here. Logophile59 (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources is more art than science. I think that as a stepping stone to a better article (if/when someone can find secondary coverage) it's fine. If you want to go the extra mile but can't find secondary coverage, see if you can reduce the amount of primary sources cited (without necessarily adding other sources) so that the references section is easier to use for casual readers. I see in a few cases you've stacked as many as four citations on one claim––you can probably cut some of that down. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Ah, thanks. As a scientist I always think that the more references the better, but now you mention it, I can see that the reference list could be pruned to make it easier to find the key ones. I'll work on that. Thanks for the advice and forbearance. Logophile59 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I found a new secondary source (yay!) and deleted some primary ones. Logophile59 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Great! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)