User talk:Dora the Axe-plorer

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1920 Xalapa earthquake

I finally left PR comments. Sorry for the delay! ceranthor 02:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will take a look Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Nepal earthquake

Hi @Dora the Axe-plorer, I see you have been helping the 1988 Nepal earthquake page recently. Masters students on the Global Health Challenges course at the University of Edinburgh have been working in groups to research and improve articles like this one for the last month, with each group member working on individual sections of the final page. As part of their final coursework submissions they took this short stub article up to 2,400 words in length using their reading and credible sources. So, they are understandably a little disheartened to see the article has been halved in length (now 1,200 words approx.) with the rewrite as soon as they posted their group efforts. I do understand that there may have been some inaccuracies (the mental impacts section may have referred a different earthquake for instance), some bloat or lack of structure/focus etc. However I'm wondering if you could summarise your main advice and contructive criticisms for any future work on similar articles. As a form of useful feedback? That way they would learn for the future and not cause any further needs for rewrites. Also, in such circumstances, I wonder if you could offer them the chance to do the rewrite first? Or advise them that the article may need a rewrite even? Perhaps if it would made more clear to you that this was part of a group student project for Masters students around the world. Any advice you would provide would be very useful for the students and make them see the positives of honing the content into something more effective and useful. Best wishes, Stinglehammer (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I've added a colleague, PigsontheWing, to take a look to offer a 2nd opinion and he thinks some of the culled content was actually good worthwhile content and well-referenced so am wondering if we could restore at least some of the student edits where that is the case. Would this be something you could consider/countenance? Stinglehammer (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stinglehammer, thank you for reaching out. Do give me some time to go a full review on the student's contributions and I could make specified comments. The overall justification for my deletion was that some paragraph go completely uncited or are written in a way that appears like a research paper. In the case of the Nepal article, there were a few lines that seem to draw an independent conclusion, WIkipedia isn't the place to do that and all information must be cited: WP:V by reliable sources.

Wikipedia should be written with a standard expected in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It doesn't have to be perfect, but I generally look for contractions or other typos. There's also the frequent issue with citations added before the period mark "." and duplicated citations which I try my best to clean up.

I've listed a few articles that are generally well-sourced, written, has supporting images (if available) and confirms to the MOS:

I'm glad and very thankful for the contributions they've made. The 1988 Nepal earthquake expansion is a great achievement. I'll return again to make a more comprehensive assessment. Best,
Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stinglehammer Replying to the second comment, yes you may restore the content, although it has to be re-written and all paragraphs/sentences must be cited with the appropriate template. I'm able to help the editors with that if needed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]