Naturesolutionary
Hello, Naturesolutionary, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Can you please help me add info box in my article draft?
edit | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... Hi, I'm writing an article about one scientist and I need to add an info box. I read the instructions but found them very complicated. Can you please help me add the info box in my article draft? Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are optional and cannot help a draft. It would be better if you checked your draft to make sure it depends less on her own writings and that statements made in the draft are supported by the cited sources. For example, the section labeled 'Personal' has no sources.
- After you have an accepted draft, we'll be happy to help you with the infobox. Just remember that every fact in the infobox must be based on some sourced content from the body of the article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi jmcgnh!
- Thanks a lot for your feedback. I have removed the parts which did not have reliable sources and added new sources (scientific studies or websites that mention the work of Barnard) to back up the article. Can you please let me know if these changes are fine? I will add the info box once the draft has been accepted. Warmly, Naturesolutionary Naturesolutionary (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- My next level of suggestion is that you look at statements in the draft where you have multiple footnotes or there are mid-sentence footnotes. These are always signs that something may be wrong. If you need more than one source to establish a fact, you could be engaged in original research or synthesis: making up something you gathered from those several sources but which none of the sources outright supports on its own. See WP:No original research for more about this. The goal should be something like: one footnote at the end of each statement. There may be a few occasions where you deviate from this, but footnotes in the middle of a sentence or a big pile of footnotes at the end of a sentence are to be avoided if at all possible. And, of course, no footnote at the end means that you haven't identified a source for that statement. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi jmcgnh,
- I have removed multiple footnotes and also the mid-sentence footnotes. And I made sure that there is a footnote at the end of each sentence. How does the article look now?
- Thank you, Naturesolutionary Naturesolutionary (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Formally, this looks much better. But when I try to match the sentences with what is stated in the sources, I'm not so sure. For instance, ref 1 is her faculty bio posted at her university. We usually allow this sort of source when looking at WP:NACADEMIC, even though it would normally be considered a primary source. But the piece makes no mention of "filmmaker", which you've included in the opening sentence. In going on, you pointed to her researchgate.net search results (adding your own gloss to what those results show). Then you cited a paper she joined as an author. What's needed at this point is evidence that these papers had a significant impact on her field of study. I'm not all that good at the NACADEMIC criteria, but I'm fairly certain you need to show, through secondary sources, that the scholar's work has had impact or influence. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi jmcgnh,
- thanks for your feedback.
- 1) I removed the filmmaker from the first sentence as it was not cited in the source.
- 2) I edited the second sentence to make it more neutral. I don't have a secondary source that would point to the impact of her work. Other similar scientists, for example, Stuart Pimm, also use the large volume of their published work to show their impact on the field.
- 3) As for the World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, there is even a Wikipedia article about it, or precisely speaking a long paragraph here: World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
- 4) Can you please read through the other paragraphs and let me know if this is fine or if I should change something else.
- Thank you, Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi jmcgnh,
- thanks for your feedback.
- 1) I removed the filmmaker from the first sentence as it was not cited in the source.
- 2) I edited the second sentence to make it more neutral. I don't have a secondary source that would point to the impact of her work. Other similar scientists, for example, Stuart Pimm, also use the large volume of their published work to show their impact on the field. In the field of conservation and global change ecology, the only times papers are written about a famous person's impact are either when they've just died, or are about to retire from a university department, which is not the case of Phoebe Barnard. Can you let me know what other lines of evidence would provide documentation?
- 3) As for the World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, there is even a Wikipedia article about it, or precisely speaking a long paragraph here: World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
- 4) Can you please read through the other paragraphs and let me know if this is fine or if I should change something else.
- Thank you, Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Formally, this looks much better. But when I try to match the sentences with what is stated in the sources, I'm not so sure. For instance, ref 1 is her faculty bio posted at her university. We usually allow this sort of source when looking at WP:NACADEMIC, even though it would normally be considered a primary source. But the piece makes no mention of "filmmaker", which you've included in the opening sentence. In going on, you pointed to her researchgate.net search results (adding your own gloss to what those results show). Then you cited a paper she joined as an author. What's needed at this point is evidence that these papers had a significant impact on her field of study. I'm not all that good at the NACADEMIC criteria, but I'm fairly certain you need to show, through secondary sources, that the scholar's work has had impact or influence. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- My next level of suggestion is that you look at statements in the draft where you have multiple footnotes or there are mid-sentence footnotes. These are always signs that something may be wrong. If you need more than one source to establish a fact, you could be engaged in original research or synthesis: making up something you gathered from those several sources but which none of the sources outright supports on its own. See WP:No original research for more about this. The goal should be something like: one footnote at the end of each statement. There may be a few occasions where you deviate from this, but footnotes in the middle of a sentence or a big pile of footnotes at the end of a sentence are to be avoided if at all possible. And, of course, no footnote at the end means that you haven't identified a source for that statement. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw that you emailed me asking that I take another look at Draft:Phoebe Barnard. In my opinion, Barnard likely satisfies the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS, but I'm not sure the draft has hit all the right notes. I have so often been overruled when I try to apply those criteria myself I am now wary. If we were to stick to WP:GNG, I think the case is less clear, since many of the sources would be considered primary. Your draft will be looked at by a reviewer who feels confident in their grasp of the relevant criteria and you'll need to be patient, given the very large number of drafts awaiting review. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will patiently wait for the feedback of the reviewer. Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Phoebe Barnard has a new comment
edit
Paid editing disclosures required
edit
Hello Naturesolutionary. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Naturesolutionary. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Naturesolutionary|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. -- Ponyobons mots 19:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Noting per this noticeboard post from the subject of the draft.-- Ponyobons mots 19:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not compensated for this article. Naturesolutionary (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- How did you choose the topic? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I learned about Barnard's work through her articles on overcoming Earth overshoot and followed the work of Stable Planet Alliance. I thought she is an interesting scientist whose work is relevant for Wikipedia readers. I reached out to Barnard and told her that I was writing an article about her. Naturesolutionary (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hm hm hm. Yeah okay, this doesn't conflict with the description at [1] on closer look.
- As you have probably not contacted the article subject purely as a courtesy, but also to receive corrections or even additional material, you should disclose this connection as a (non-financial) conflict of interest on the draft's talk page ({{connected contributor}}) or your user page ({{User COI}}) unless you haven't received any material/instructions/corrections/requests back. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have not received corrections, requests or instructions from Barnard. I drew from online available sources. Given the fact that the article is now declined, I suppose there is no further action needed. Naturesolutionary (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine then, sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for creating the draft. I have (already) undone the decline. There is actually no action needed at the moment, though, as you don't have a conflict of interest and the article is still/again being reviewed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Rereading that post I can see how it is not necessarily an accusation of undisclosed paid editing – just that Barnard was aware someone had written an article about her. I'm going to go ahead and accept the draft, as it appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC. – bradv 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Naturesolutionary (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah – that, and the post is additionally of course not a reliable source of information. Even if it had actually implied undisclosed paid editing, the situation would have been unclear. Judging the draft by its content seems to be the best approach; thanks for reviewing this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Rereading that post I can see how it is not necessarily an accusation of undisclosed paid editing – just that Barnard was aware someone had written an article about her. I'm going to go ahead and accept the draft, as it appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC. – bradv 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine then, sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for creating the draft. I have (already) undone the decline. There is actually no action needed at the moment, though, as you don't have a conflict of interest and the article is still/again being reviewed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have not received corrections, requests or instructions from Barnard. I drew from online available sources. Given the fact that the article is now declined, I suppose there is no further action needed. Naturesolutionary (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I learned about Barnard's work through her articles on overcoming Earth overshoot and followed the work of Stable Planet Alliance. I thought she is an interesting scientist whose work is relevant for Wikipedia readers. I reached out to Barnard and told her that I was writing an article about her. Naturesolutionary (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- How did you choose the topic? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Phoebe Barnard has been accepted
edit Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
– bradv 00:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)