User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus

Click here to leave me a new message. Let me know if I've done something silly.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2025 as User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus/Archive 2024 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Draft:Kenzi Wang

Hey Marcus, I hope you’re well.

Thank you for reviewing my post. Unfortunately it got rejected :(

This was my first attempt at writing an article on Wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to give me some feedback on how I can improve my writing? What I did wrong and what I did right? I would really appreciate it!

I did see the draft info you provided, however, I think it would really help if you could give me a little insight as you have a lot of experience.

Kenzi Wang is listed as public figure on Google search so seems like it should be there but maybe I didn’t cite it correctly or used bad citations?

I would really appreciate a bit of insight here so I can improve my wiki page writing skills.

Thank you!! Jamesw98 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jamesw98, happy to help. Unfortunately, since the time of my review, another edit has deemed that that draft was too promotional and was eligible to be deleted. Our records show that the draft article was deleted by User:Bbb23 (talk) as it met criteria G11 for being too promotional. You'll have to discuss with them about having the article restored. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Adam Zeman draft

Thanks for your review of Draft:Adam Zeman (neurologist). I've added some secondary sources to it - I'm not sure how much secondary coverage is required to demonstrate notability. LookLook36 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

HI @LookLook36, generally, our WP:Notability policy specifies that a topic must meet our WP:GNG list. Specifically,

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
  • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Specifically, understand that significant coverage shows that the subject is the main focus or a main focus of the cited material. See WP:SIGCOV.

Alternatively, if it can be shown the subject of the article meets some of our subject-specific notability guidelines, then notability may be presumed if the subject meets the requirements of the subject's project. For WP:NPROF, the list there says:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

You might also consider trying to demonstrate WP:NAUTHOR. You should look to meet these notability requirements by citing to sources that are WP:Reliable, and WP:Independent of the subject. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's very helpful. I believe I have demonstrated that he meets WP:NPROF on grounds 1 and 7 - I've resubmitted the article. LookLook36 (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Draft: Play Equity

Hello Marcus, and thank you for your timely edit of play equity ... I've made the edits for sourcing, and await any input. Many thanks. I've made the edits you recommended and await any other guidance or ulitmately, am hopeful this can be published. PrintableSpace (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PrintableSpace, good job on the edits, I've resubmitted the draft on your behalf. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Wentworth Huyshe

Hi,

Can you advise on any update on the review for Wentworth Huyshe, an active member of the Arts & Crafts movement in Chipping Campden in the early 20th century? I don't understand how the sources and references quoted are inaccurate or unverifiable? Huyshe2022 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: Responded on talk page. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Mediterranean Sea View 2017

Hello!

I see that you have been working through the Mediterranean Sea View 2017 page that was recently uploaded. I saw that the page received a "C" on the talk page score. Do you have advice on how to fix that and raise score? I want to make sure that the article is meeting Wikipedia standards. FanofColorado (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FanofColorado, there's nothing inherently wrong with an article that receives a C-rating, see WP:ASSESS. Coming out of AfC and past the WP:NPP team says that the subjects meets our core principles on WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, which is not a guarantee, especially for new editors. Good job on your first article! But if you're curious, the requirements for an article to be assess a B-rating is:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

If you would like, you can request a more formal feedback and assessment at WP:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment § Requesting an assessment. Or you can ask the folks over at WP:WikiProject Visual arts what their recommendation would be.

To go higher than a B-class article, you would need to submit it as a Good article at WP:GAN, a lengthier process on the project. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask!

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and edits with the first article! I will keep fine-combing that up. FanofColorado (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:SK Ray

Hey Marcus,

I have mentioned reliable and enough citations for the information provided on the page,could i please know where did it go wrong or what needs to be corrected, SK Ray IITKGP (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SK Ray IITKGP, first I would remind you of the WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY notice I left on your talk page and a reminder of our WP:COI policies in the event that the draft is accepted. The draft article currently has multiple WP:external links in the text that either need to be turned into references using <ref> tags or removed. In addition, the draft currently cites to a lot of WP:Primary sources, that in turn, create concerns about failing to meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. At present, the most cited reference on the page is a wixsite.com website for the lab group; not exactly WP:Secondary or WP:Reliable. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Further, a closer examination of your sources would have shown that the links provided are generic homepage urls which are not specific to the subject of the article, search query URLs that are non-specific, and profiles that do not return any information as it pertains to the subject of the article. Frankly, if you are only here to promote someone or something without an understanding of the policies and practices of the project, Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Take the advice of Wikipedia:Autobiography. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Marcus,

Thankyou verymuch for mentioning in detail on things that needs to meet wiki-policies,we will surely get back with proper changes required for artcile to get published.

However,you have specified that some URLs are non-specific and do not return any info,but please do look closely into it,which proves the info provided ,for example "He is the recipient of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA) Young Scientist Award of year 1993", to this i have given the Website URL and the other URL which directs you to Award recipient page in which there is list of names to whom it was awarded(in our case it was of year 1993 with name Ray Samit Kumar) ,and the also same process has been applied to other information provided.Frankly, we are not here to promote anyone , this was just an attempt to have a page on our professor who is really well established and renowned for his contributions to semiconductor physics. SK Ray IITKGP (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus,

First, thank you for all of the good work you are doing here on the project. You are a very productive patroller and it's appreciated!

Second, I watch the Move log and have noticed what seems to be some odd page moves. You sometimes move an article out of User space to Draft space and then either a) tag it for speedy deletion or b) move it straight away to main space. You don't need to move a page out of User space to Draft space before doing either of these steps. You can both tag it for deletion while it is still in User space or move it directly from User space to main space. Neither deletion tagging or a move to main space require a detour to Draft space. Also, I haven't seen you do this but please don't move an article out of User space to main space so that the article can then be tagged with an "A" speedy deletion criteria. Again, I haven't noticed you doing this but there do seem to be some unnecessary page moves going on and so I want to mention that this is not a wise move.

I think any unnecessary page moves will be confusing to the content creator because the deletion tagging and the multiple moves happen just seconds after the first page move to Draft space so they are probably unaware of what is going unless they happen to be editing at the time this is occurring which is unlikely. I hope I have gotten across my point, ask me if you have any questions about it. Many thanks, again, for all of your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, appreciate the feedback. Happy to walk you through my thinking on the maintenance moves I do.

I move drafts submitted while in the user space because I'm following the Reviewing instructions § Submissions in other namespace and the advice in the tracking category at Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace. My understanding of this protocol is two fold: once submitted, it's best in case the draft isn't reviewed right away that other editors may want to improve on it (like is possible with the notification with the {{r with possibilities}} redirect template). The other is (and again this is my understanding) that drafts that are spammy or promotional and therefore later deleted, will be tracked in the deletion log under that page name. That's the advice I've seen previously proffered. So that's why I might move it and then, when a closer inspection finds that it may qualify for speedy deletion, tag it for speedy deletion. I often only do this for articles masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. I like to think that most moves+reviews I do are declinations (or leave them) and not rejections or CSD candidates. Drafts that are obviously spam and don't pass that first sniff test, I'll tag with the {{Db-multiple}} U5 and G11 prior to a move; I know some editors will do this before a move, but like I said, my understanding was that leaving a record in the deletion log was preferential.

With regards to moving to draft space and then right to mainspace, I try not to do this. I know I've done this recently twice off the top of my head. In these instances, what usually happens is I think I'm not be ready accept and they're best to incubate for someone else to review in the draft space, but then I end up coming around on them. To this end, I understand your point that less moves in the move log would be preferential, and in the future I'll try to slow down in these instances and catch (and approve) them sooner without the layover in the draft space.

Don't think I've done any moves of drafts (or sandboxes) to mainspace for the sole reason that they would qualify for an "A" CSD criteria.

I always appreciate the feedback. Hopefully my logic makes sense and you can see what I'm doing, but if my understanding of the above procedure or logical reasoning thereof is wrong, please let me know. I'm always happy to take more feedback about reviewing and some of the maintenance work I do. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 01:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Central Ohio Film Critics Association Awards for Best Animated Feature

Hello MicrobiologyMarcus, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Central Ohio Film Critics Association Awards for Best Animated Feature, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ivanvector I appreciate the heads up here on the declination decision. I'll walk you through my thought process on the A7 as it applied to the aforementioned now-draft article: my understanding of WP:SIGNIFICANCE was that because I didn't think that the article made a statement along the lines of any of the examples in the guidelines, just gave a description of the subject AND all of the sources that weren't primary just gave a list of the nominations that didn't describe the subject, I thought I was good on the A7 nomination.

I reply with my explanation because A7 isn't a CSD criteria I use frequently and I did in fact do some background reading before the nomination, so I was curious where our interpretations differed or where I faulted and missed the indication. Thanks again, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This was really borderline, and I'm probably more lenient with "claims of significance" than a lot of administrators. I thought that merit awards from an organization of film critics with several years' history was probably enough of a claim to pass the bar, but only just. Then I thought about it some more and sent it back to draft, it really wasn't ready and if that's all the sources that are available then it's a long way from WP:GNG. I also don't work with A7 very much, I don't like criteria that are that subjective. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector that's fair; I greatly appreciate the heads up and the guidance here. I saw the draftification and figured we weren't that far apart on our end opinion of the article. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Joel Mordi

Hi @MicrobiologyMarcus, thank you for your comment on my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joel_Mordi. I've made the changes as you advised. Please feel free to offer more suggestions if needed, so I can submit my article for review and get it into the mainspace. Thank you. ~Ana (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Christiana Stanley, in my opinion, the draft still reads as promotional and as a WP:BLP, does not meet the minimum standard for inline citations. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

How to translate Chinese Article about Yuta Jinguji?

Dear Marcus,

Thank you for your review! My first attempt to write an article about Yuta Jinguji is declined. In fact, there has been an article about Yuta Jinguji in Japanese, Chinese, Cantonese and Indonesian on Wikipedia. I tried to translate the existing Chinese version in English. I translated, in my opinion, some important parts of the content, since the instruction on the page said I didn't need to translate all of them. However, when I tried to publish it, it showed me "Unknown unrecoverable error has occurred. Error details: You do not have permission to create new pages."

Therefore, I copied my translation to start a whole new page and submitted it, which has been declined as your message.

May I know how can I get permission to translate the existing page about Yuta Jinguji? Thank you so much!

Sincerely,

Rae Raekishi0929

Raekishi0929 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)