User talk:Bine Gruen

Hi Bine Gruen! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This has a number of issues. I am declining now for two fairly minor, but very obvious reasons, while asking the author to consider the big question of notability (see separate comment).

1. The draft is written in a promotional manner. Expressions like "leading expert", "scientific pioneer and groundbreaking expert", etc. are peacocky and need to be toned down. (Note: you can say someone is a "leading expert", if you are directly quoting another 'leading expert', but you cannot say that yourself.)

2. There are insufficient citations and/or sources. For example, which source tells us that she has an MSc from Krakow, or that she is a dual citizen of Poland and the UK? In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.

(Comment on notability to follow.)

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:Zofia Anna Stos-Gale 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

many thanks for reviewing my draft about Zofia Stos-Gale. Your comments were very helpful to me. Let me go through all your concerns in detail:

>>>>>This has a number of issues. I am declining now for two fairly minor, but very obvious reasons, while asking the author to consider the big question of notability (see separate comment).

>>>>1. The draft is written in a promotional manner. Expressions like "leading expert", "scientific pioneer and groundbreaking expert", etc. are peacocky and need to be toned down. (Note: you can say someone is a "leading expert", if you are directly quoting another 'leading expert', but you cannot say that yourself.)

...... I reviewed the text and re-wrote in a neutral point of view and removed all peacock terms that I could identify. I referred to as many independent, reliable and published sources.

2. There are insufficient citations and/or sources. For example, which source tells us that she has an MSc from Krakow, or that she is a dual citizen of Poland and the UK? In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.

.......I researched and added as much citations as I found available. I added citation for her MSc, and examples that she is acknowledged as a specialist in her field.

Concerning the issue of notability:

Earlier, I left a comment regarding a structural problem that I find quite problematic. Female scientists of the older generation were not acknowledged or seen for their work, particularly in the natural science disciplines. I can speak for European women, who were often pushed into the background for the benefit of their male colleagues. They received no institutional support, career plans, work-family-life balance, higher positions, awards, and so on, even if they were exceptional in scientific research. This makes it difficult for me to add secondary sources to the biography. I can find other bibliography entries on Wikipedia, which demonstrate the same discrepancy between the display of female and male scientists.

However, the situation has now improved for the younger generation, who are promoted by the government and institutions, have career plans, support for combining family and career, awards created especially for them, and funding lines that support building up their own research groups. This is definitely a positive development, but Wikipedia should consider the problematic for bibliography pages. If standards for publishing in Wikipedia would be adapted to such structural issues, they could provide better support for female scientists.

Hopefully, you can follow my concern. Hope also that I had considered otherwise all your helpful comments and improved the draft accordingly.

S.K. Bine Gruen (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bine Gruen! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Zofia Anna Stos-Gale. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Significa liberdade was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics.

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:Zofia Anna Stos-Gale 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.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]