User talk:CPhlo

Welcome!

Hi CPhlo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I am experienced in writing/copyediting, and the WP markup is straighforward enough (if not bit-dense and short). So it's a simple matter of long, laborious hours to code per WP this article I'm preparing. CPhlo (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Astroclimatology (November 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KeepItGoingForward were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The article needs to be made more concise and encyclopedic in nature. Some sections are hard to follow or see the relevancy to the article's topic such as the introduction. The reference section also needs to be fixed to conform to citation standards.

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:Astroclimatology 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.

KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CPhlo! 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! KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined on 5 November 2024 by KeepItGoingForwardBold text You seriously think that several dozens- over a hundred- refereed journal articles are 'not adequately supported'... when OTHER WP ARTICLES already establish the topic? CF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teide_Observatory#Astroclimate_and_seeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamakhy_Astrophysical_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamenskoe_Plateau_Observatory etc. Sorry, your statement that sources are not reliable is not reliable. You don't read MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society), PASP (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific), A&A (Astronomy and Astrophysics), etc. Article is resubmitted, criticism is not constructive. As for reference code, I had already mentioned- multiple places- that code is in progress. That would have been a fair point to make if you had taken that into consideration. Apparently you did not. Resubmitted. CPhlo (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just passing by and saw your comment. In the reviewing software, the reviewer picks some options and it autogenerates the first two grey boxes you see. Generally you should pay much more attention to the human written comment, in this case

The article needs to be made more concise and encyclopedic in nature. Some sections are hard to follow or see the relevancy to the article's topic such as the introduction. The reference section also needs to be fixed to conform to citation standards.

If you read the comment it does not question your sourcing. Please keep calm, one of the perks of the review process is that it tries to help generate the best quality article from the onset. As you are the original author you are best placed to improve the draft, we are relying on you. You can definitely modify the draft while you wait for the next review.

I took a very brief look at the draft, specifically the Seeing section. Is it necessary to re-explain all the basics of astronomical seeing to the reader, or can we let them follow wikilinks to understand the concepts instead? I am not sure but it is something to consider. Is the whole section relevant to astroclimatology?

In Physics#Classical_theory it says Main article: Classical physics and when you visit classical physics it actually mentions "Physics". This is called summary style in Wikipedia. When I visit Astronomical seeing I see no mention of astroclimatology, at least yet. Commander Keane (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]