User talk:BeingObjective

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

BeingObjective is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

'US Based Physician'

REMEMBER: WP:RAP before you type anything

Wikidata item description property vs Short description template inside the article

I could not find differences between Wikidata item description property vs Short description template inside the article. I thought that they are redundant and deleted many of them, but they found to be different. I read help sections of each of them and tried to summarize the difference at What are the differences betewen a Short description and a description from the Wikidata item? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure - likely my error being new.

BeingObjective (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not your error. I just sent you the information. When you create pages or edit pages, verify the short descriptions as well. I sent you the link where you can find information on what is the difference between them. You don't have to put a definition, put the field covered, see Wikipedia:Short_description for details. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reviewing a couple of articles for the GA criteria

Would you please consider reviewing one or two articles nominated for GA in Biology and medicine by other editors? I submitted several articles for review, and if you help to reduce the backlog of pending nominations, other reviewers will catch my submissions sooner. Thank you in advance. I can help you guide for review process, although it is easy.

Prerequisites:

Read instructions at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Reviewing
Install the review tool

Review cycle:

Go to Biology and medicine and choose an article you like and click "start review", a page will open, save the page without any modifications; you will modify it later
Read the article you chosen and compare against Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria
If there are minor omissions that the nominating editor can resolve, discuss at the page (that page that you created in previous p.) so that the nominating editor could fix
Make a decision (pass or fail) and explain on each of the parts of the criteria
On the review page, a review tool will make links to conclude review, so click an appropriate link

Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do so - though I do need to read the guidance and seek a deeper understanding of this new WP world I have come to - in my prior professional world, I was mainly a content provider, the fine wordsmithing and elegant prose came from other writers - BeingObjective (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were some articles on medical interventions that might be familiar to you. I hope it will be interesting experience. You will be able to contribute better knowing the requirements for good articles. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one may be good for you to review: Coronary artery bypass surgery Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see the article, I saw post on Talk about Drug-eluting stent‎, I will try to make opinion and write here to you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles I 'adopted' make sense - as all WP medical articles are all from multiple editors with contributions spanning many years - they all tend to 'bloat' with irrelevant nuggets of data that make them read oddly, too deep in places and too shallow in others.

I think the magic is in creating a balanced article - this is a challenge - on any platform or format - and in candor - perhaps that is fine, I am not sure gaining GA status means a lot - I noted the process and also the comments and I am super cynical that this process would hold up in a more traditional peer reviewed medical journal submission - this is just an encyclopedia after all.

BeingObjective (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that in some instance there are more than 3 references together.

Please avoid more than 3 references as it may trigger Wikipedia:Citation_overkill edit warning. Preferably, there should be at most 2 references together. If all references are equally important, try to spread them acrsoss the whole paragraph rather than having them together at the end. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had peer reviews in a two different peer-reviewed-journals about steroids, and this process is absolutely differnt. While in academic journals the reviews is mostly on substance, here in the GA review this is mostly on style and various wikipedia rules, like quality of sources, etc. Reviwers for GA more care about the process and style than on substance, but style is also very important! I am absolutely sure that GA will make the article better because additional eyes are always good, and people here know about Wikipedia traditions, especially those who have many reviews and many good articles published, but we may not know which reviewer will come. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem as you described (old articles without any particular structure grown non-systemically) in the following articles that I edited:

21-Hydroxylase (already GA)
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency (nominated, waits in the review backlog)

It is easier to write an article from scratch with a friend or alone than to improve existing article. We made an article from scratch with another Wikipedian (who was later banned, in my opinion, unreasonably and unjust):

Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia (already GA, passed review easier than other)

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read the article and noticed that the first sentence and an opening few sentences were not easibly understood by a broad reader audience who are not medics. I read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence again and tried to improve the article. It is now more descriptive. For example, a child of 12 years old might not have know what does the term "stent" mean, and it were previously like "A drug-eluting stent is a stent that..." but now it is friendlier: "A drug-eluting stent (DES) is a thin tube that is used to treat narrowed arteries ..." so a kid will understand that. As the lead progresses, there increases the complexity of terms, but the kid at this point may already receive general information on what a stent is.

It was suggested at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence to not make the first too complex and instead it was suggested spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

Please see how the article looks now, feel free to modify or revert or discuss, I will continue reading in the meanwhile.