User talk:Aleksandra6617

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Pohorille (July 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Iwaqarhashmi was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andrew Pohorille and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Waqar💬 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aleksandra6617! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Waqar💬 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse, thank you for the feedback. I have previously published an article on pl.wikipedia. During the writing of that article, I had a mentor from Wikipedia. Could you be such a mentor and help me make changes? Aleksandra6617 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bobby Cohn were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Aleksandra6617/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bobby Cohn, thank you so much for your comments. I have a huge request for you, would you be able to make a sample quotation and I will make the rest? I will be very grateful Aleksandra6617 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bobby Cohn, could you please check what else I should improve on this article? I'll appreciate it Aleksandra6617 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aleksandra6617, I'm not sure I understand your first request. Per my declination reasoning, the article will need additional citations (please address the {{citation needed}} tags), especially as it relates to personal information, pursuant to our WP:BLP policy, and ensure the tone of the article is neutral and not WP:Wikipuffery, some phrasing—such as His other research interests were rather eclectic —he published papers in various in fields ranging from the structure of comets to the mechanism of anesthetic action and risky decision-making—is not very encyclopedic. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Bobby Cohn. I have thought about your comments regarding the 'not very encyclopedic' style of some sentences, such as the one you cited:'His other research interests were rather eclectic—he published papers in various fields ranging from the structure of comets to the mechanism of anesthetic action and risky decision-making.'I understand your point, and I realize that this might not fully align with the encyclopedic tone expected on Wikipedia. Since I do not have much experience with creating wiki pages, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to rewrite this sentence without losing its content. Andrew had very broad interests, and he published in many areas. Could you please provide some suggestions on how to express this in a more encyclopedic style while preserving the content and meaning?

Thank you so much for your help! Aleksandra6617 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bobby Cohn, I hope you are doing well. I would greatly appreciate it if you could refer to my last message. Aleksandra6617 (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aleksandra, the problem arises when using overly purple prose; consider the guidance at WP:Wikipuffery and then see how adding characterizations such as rather electric are unnecessary flourishes at best, and failures to adhere to our WP:Neutral point of view policy.

I've written advice on this before, so I will copy and paste it here:

You may use research items to support facts about the subject, but not promote the subject. Consider the difference between:

1. John Doe has conducted research in agronomy and ecology, and has published a patent for Unique Methodology 1.
2. John Doe is a world renowned genius in agronomy and ecology, and has transformed the way ecology research is conducted the world over.

References

You can't say the promotional part unless someone else has said that about the subject (see WP:Reliable, WP:Independent and WP:Secondary sources policy).

If you stick to just describing the facts, you will find it easier to write. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bobby Cohn,

I've made the changes you mentioned. Is it okay now, or should I adjust anything else? Best regards Aleksandra6617 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrzej Pohorille (September 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ldm1954 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andrzej Pohorille and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ldm1954,

Thank you very much for your feedback. Could I ask you to point out the sections that need improvement? I would be very grateful. I have the impression that the previous version was written correctly, but I was asked to change it to have the character it has now Aleksandra6617 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest starting by looking at the page for his advisor David Shugar. That page in fact needs sources, but ignoring that it focuses on the key points such as awards and publications that prove notability. A slightly better example is David Beratan although I think the number of his papers included is too large. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. So, change the content so that it's not written and read like a CV. Besides that, if the awards don't have citations, will the article be accepted? Aleksandra6617 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, remove content and make the article comparable to others. Note that they must be major awards, not just NASA awards. I suspect it will be hard for you to prove his notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)