Talk:Materials Letters

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Refimprove

The tag is excessive.For a peer review journal, basic bibliographic information are reported in the main page, and they are reliable. I linked the webpage. It's not about the "it is not a third party source" here... If a peer-reviewed journal lies about the objective description of itself (codes, and IF from Web of Science), than I guess you have much bigger problem :D. Sources should not be counted like apples.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please if anyone would like to comment here, in the interest of the image of wikipedia I suggest you to avoid the mechanical copy and paste of guidelines and the "I am sorry i have offended you" or whatever. I am not offended and I am sure that many of you are very good with that after years, and you enjoy it, but it is not about real knowledge. Culture and critical analysis of the sources are different from that.

The IF changes every year, if it is not updated in the text, or the infobox, you just click on the webpage of the journal (where it is reported with the source) and update it (unless we start to use wikidata, which we will one day). That's why I did not inserted that inline citation because that line is going to change in any case. It was a deliberate choice when I was comparing with Functional Materials Letters.

My personal lesson: don't make stub article about academic journal on wikipedia. Maybe a bigger article when I can access more sources because it is possible to describe a long history, that could be still fun... but this recent minor journals whose content is in the end nothing more than an infobox, it is not worth it. If we have to spend time explaining how to evaluate the sources, let's wait some patrolled users to do them so probably noone notices and (s)he does not have to spend time on these (rather non-existing) issues. --Alexmar983 (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW yuo can read in the guideline that It is acceptable to take this information [=IF] from the journal publisher's website and use the above references as a source, even if you don't have access to the Journal Citation Reports yourself. It's funny that a tag is inserted on a pro forma of a missing source that you can't access because in the end the website of the journal is fine to take it, but the webiste of the journal is reported... I put the precise source months ago, but after I have read this, I think I can remove the tag.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]