Rockswhisperer

Draft:S-type Granite

Hi Rockswhisperer, I had a look at the draft. Lots of good material, thanks for sharing this on WP :) I think this will make a fine article, but a couple of things need to be taken care of. These points also apply to I-type granite, particularly if you wish to add images there

• The table is copyrighted to the original authors; you can't claim it as "own work" (and it is not old enough to be out of copyright). I've deleted it from the article, and I will have to ask to have it deleted from Commons as well.

Q - if we cite the original article from 1974 can it be used? Or should we make a modified table ourselves to replace this one?

• If the other other images are your own work, they can be used. However, there's such a lot of them that they kind of overwhelm the article. Even on a big screen, the row of images marches way past the text; this is something to avoid. I would suggest cutting the number by about half, if possible. That might reduce them to a number where each can be clearly associated with a section of text, by placing it in that section. Another option is using a gallery at the end of the article to bundle a number of images next to each other in one separate section. Consider what you think is preferable.

Q/A - Our motivation is to help provide images of these rocks and minerals, which is a very important part of understanding this subject, but very scarce and hard to find. We thought most people will come to wikipedia first and then will be very appreciative (especially anyone interested in geology world-wide). I will look into the Gallery option.

WP doesn't use the journal-style "Figure X" captioning of images, or in-text references to such anchors ("see Fig. 1A" etc.). The caption should just consist of the description, and the text ideally does not make direct reference to any image; the image should just be placed in the respective sectionso that the connection is obvious. Again, this is tricky when there are so many images, or when a gallery is used. I would thus suggest reducing the number of images to a workable level instead.

"Q/A" - Figure captions...just a habit and part of training students how to write a scientific report. I will change this. I hope to add to these pages, and create new ones in the future, as part of class projects. I will keep the correct style in mind. We can also expand a little more on the significance of these images and include citations. We will work on including more citations. I'm all in favor of this point.

• Referencing should be a bit more extensive and specific. There are a number of paragraphs that have no reference at all; and some where the reference sits in the middle of the paragraph, leaving the reader in doubt what the remainder is sourced to. Please try to be as specific as possible here. Please also be aware that none of the material can be unpublished, orignal research, even if you can personally vouch for its veracity. It's key that everything is potentially verifiable by the reader by following a reference.

"Q/A" - We will work on including more citations. I'm all in favor of this point. No problem as all original scientific work I create with colleagues and students is going to be considered for peer-reviewed publication. I completely understand that wikipedia is not the place for trying to publish "original work".

• I have removed the "Contributions" section. Please be aware that all material that is published on Wikipedia enters common use, to the extent that anyone is free to reuse it even for commercial purposes, and that it may be rewritten and/or replaced by any number of people. That means that "original creator" mentions are pretty pointless, as there is no telling how much of their material will be in the article a day or a year from now!
• (I have moved the draft to Draft:S-type granite (lowercase G) to follow naming guidelines.)

"Q/A" - Understood. The students in this class were pretty excited to work on this project. I think they will still be excited to make a contribution that can be of benefit to curious people like themselves.Rockswhisperer (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, I suggest looking on this text as a summary in an encyclopedia and not as a variety of journal article - that's actually pretty misleading :)

Please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page if you have questions. The draft is currently in the review queue, and it may take a while before one of the folks there gets a chance to have a look at it. While I would not recommend moving it to mainspace yourself unless the above issues have been addressed, there's no obstacle to me or you or anyone else doing so ourselves if we deem it ready. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rockswhisperer: I'll bundle my answers down here for for simplicity.

• I'm afraid the actual image of the table could only be used if it were released under a suitable share-alike license (as is all material on Wikipedia) - which in turn could only be done by the authors, or by the journal. You will see that WP articles show images directly taken from journal publications mostly if they are from, e.g., PLOS One or similar open-source journals; these handily publish all their material under such a license. Everything else has to be recreated. If you wish to present the content rather than a "historial" image, you could thus re-enter the text into a new table and attribute that to the original publication.
• Regarding images, I forgot another option. If the material lends itself to this treatment, you could arrange images and accompanying text into a common table. Grabbing an example at random, here's a simple image + text list used for species of a bird genus: Psilopogon (as you see, there's plenty of room for text). If all the images have a common theme (e.g., illustration of a specific mineral), then they could be collected under one sub-heading as such a table. That might actually be the best solution.
• Sorry about the contributions thing; it's one of the oddities of Wikipedia that it more or less swallows all that volunteer work and completely anonymizes it. If you are interested in providing your students with something more of a payoff in terms of publishing cred, you might consider submitting the article (maybe both combined together) to the WikiJournal of Science. This in essence puts well-developed Wikipedia articles through a complete third-party journal review process, with the result being published in the journal and on WP simultaneously, thus serving both goals - a peer-reviewed, citable review article (with complete author list), and an easy-to-find WP entry that can continue to grow from that base. This would likely engender a bit of follow-up work down the line if there are reviewer comments, but students might be interested in pursuing that. Just a suggestion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: S-type granite has been accepted

S-type granite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep^Talk 21:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)