Content deleted Content added
ce. content, not contributor. my apologies. |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<!-- Please add the rationale for reassessment below this comment. Subsequent discussion should be added below, until the reassessment is closed.--> |
<!-- Please add the rationale for reassessment below this comment. Subsequent discussion should be added below, until the reassessment is closed.--> |
||
This is not Good Article level work in my view. See discussion [[Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Good_Articles_for_Grades]]. I started cleaning it up and {{u|SandyGeorgia}} did more. There are several places where writing still needs work (vague generalizations in lead); there are several sourcing issues; It is still new (can't call it stable yet. Please re-review. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
This is not Good Article level work in my view. See discussion [[Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Good_Articles_for_Grades]]. I started cleaning it up and {{u|SandyGeorgia}} did more. There are several places where writing still needs work (vague generalizations in lead); there are several sourcing issues; It is still new (can't call it stable yet. Please re-review. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I have been working collaboratively with other wikipedia editors and reviewers for three weeks on this article, and will continue to be very responsive to feedback. I believe in providing readers with informative, broad, neutral, and well-researched coverage of any topic, and it is my priority to accomplish this with the current sleep hygiene article. I hope that we can work together to facilitate article improvement, instead of removing the good article status. Thank you. [[User:leslierrn|leslierrn]] ([[User talk:leslierrn|talk]]) 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi again, '''(1)''' I spent 8 hours today on the page responding to feedback. I did this to try to address reviewers concerns, although I did not realize that {{u|SandyGeorgia}} and {{u|Jytdog}} believed the GA status to be a [[Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Good_Articles_for_Grades|fluke]]. I understand the situation, although I am of course disappointed by the way everything was dealt with. In defense of other PhD students, I think we are definitely capable of contributing meaningfully to wikipedia, and any messiness is not done out of carelessness. Constructive feedback can really help us improve our articles. If there is a way of salvaging content that took days to write, that would seem preferable to simply deleting sections. '''(2)''' There was also a lot of talk about my course's goal with this final project. To clarify, our grades were not at all dependent on achieving GA. I have been teaching sleep hygiene for years, so I thought that my content might be worth at least trying for GA - that's the reason I submitted. Also, our professor had great intentions with this final project. The point was to help translate scientific knowledge to a broader audience - I believe that getting students with expertise involved with Wikipedia is a great way to expand the available topics. I hope everyone can also see the value in that, even if they believe that the content it not perfect quality. I will let the wikipedia process take over from here. [[User:Leslierrn|Leslierrn]] ([[User talk:Leslierrn|talk]]) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:12, 14 December 2014
Sleep hygiene
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This is not Good Article level work in my view. See discussion Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Good_Articles_for_Grades. I started cleaning it up and SandyGeorgia did more. There are several places where writing still needs work (vague generalizations in lead); there are several sourcing issues; It is still new (can't call it stable yet. Please re-review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have been working collaboratively with other wikipedia editors and reviewers for three weeks on this article, and will continue to be very responsive to feedback. I believe in providing readers with informative, broad, neutral, and well-researched coverage of any topic, and it is my priority to accomplish this with the current sleep hygiene article. I hope that we can work together to facilitate article improvement, instead of removing the good article status. Thank you. leslierrn (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again, (1) I spent 8 hours today on the page responding to feedback. I did this to try to address reviewers concerns, although I did not realize that SandyGeorgia and Jytdog believed the GA status to be a fluke. I understand the situation, although I am of course disappointed by the way everything was dealt with. In defense of other PhD students, I think we are definitely capable of contributing meaningfully to wikipedia, and any messiness is not done out of carelessness. Constructive feedback can really help us improve our articles. If there is a way of salvaging content that took days to write, that would seem preferable to simply deleting sections. (2) There was also a lot of talk about my course's goal with this final project. To clarify, our grades were not at all dependent on achieving GA. I have been teaching sleep hygiene for years, so I thought that my content might be worth at least trying for GA - that's the reason I submitted. Also, our professor had great intentions with this final project. The point was to help translate scientific knowledge to a broader audience - I believe that getting students with expertise involved with Wikipedia is a great way to expand the available topics. I hope everyone can also see the value in that, even if they believe that the content it not perfect quality. I will let the wikipedia process take over from here. Leslierrn (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)