Draft talk:Nathan Carlin

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Medicine

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine

Psychology

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology

Health and fitness

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness

article on Nathan Carlin

@Bobby Cohn: Hello. Thank you for reviewing my article submission. I saw your critique that it needed to be formatted into paragraphs rather than as a resume of achievements. This makes a lot of sense to me. I believe I have fixed the problem, however, I decided to leave the bibliography section in-tact and just add a summary paragraph explaining which publications fall into which broad themes.

I do not know whether you will be reviewing this article again or if someone else will. In either case, thank you for your time.

-TheSkipperToo TheSkipperToo (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is no longer listed as a source

@Theroadislong thank you for your time in reviewing my draft article. I have removed the mistake that you pointed out. I meant to only link to the Wikipedia article, not to list it in the references. Thanks for letting me know.

-TheSkipperToo TheSkipperToo (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added many more references

@Curb Safe Charmer , thank you for recommending those guidelines on references and citations. I have added many more independent sources to substantiate the information I have included in my submission. I am learning more with each reviewer rejection. :) This is my first attempt to publish anything on wikipedia, and the process is very interesting. TheSkipperToo (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSkipperToo: unfortunately you've gone too far. You've WP:REFBOMBED the article. You only need one, or at the most two, references from reliable, independent sources to allow the reader to verify a statement. By adding four or five references to a statement, you're just adding work for the reviewer to go through them all. I suggest you read WP:CITETRIM for how to reduce them so that only the best references remain. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Curb Safe Charmer. I have followed your recommendation and reduced the number of citations per item of information to no more than two, keeping the ones that seemed most independent and reliable. TheSkipperToo (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea thanks for this input. I have followed your advice and trimmed down many of the references so that only the most helpful ones remain. This is a really good learning process. Thanks for the help. TheSkipperToo (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

humble request for reconsideration

@Bobby Cohn , I hope you are doing well. I have made many changes to this submission since you first read and rejected it. Would you please consider looking at it once more to see whether it is suitable now? If there is still more work to do, I would appreciate knowing where the weaknesses lie. Yours sincerely, @TheSkipperToo TheSkipperToo (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined it, not rejected it. As such, it is eligible to be reviewed again. It has been submitted and is currently waiting in the queue, please be patient. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kk, @Bobby Cohn. I'll be patient. Thanks for your reply. TheSkipperToo (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]