This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yung-Ping Chen redirect. |
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
I am copying and pasting conversation from my talk page to this page in order to ease conversation on the development of this article. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Your comments and explanations are very much appreciated and will be of great help in preparing a revised version. Should the proposed revision, when ready, be further discussed with you or should I just resubmit it through the normal process (presumably to another reviewer)? Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Is this where I can dialog with Timtrent about a rejected submission, so I can get a better idea of how to fix it? Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 10:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Will do; thanks. Is this the correct mode for dialogue (going into Editing User Talk within my section)? Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 00:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful. Below I have indicated my questions/comments below each of your review points (in bold):
I have read your piece on “A Good Article”; thank you; this was very helpful. I had previously read the general guidelines on creating articles and associated material (re tone, style, notability criteria, etc.) and attempted to be consistent with these. I tried to model this piece, in terms of both structure and content, on existing Wikipedia articles from the comparable domain (contemporary economists and social scientists). Evidently, it’s still not quite there. There was language in the first submission that may have better established “notability” but I edited out much of this for the 2nd submission in view of the earlier reviewer’s feedback regarding writing from a neutral point of view and in an encyclopedic manner. For the next revision I have added a new 2nd sentence at the article’s beginning: “He pioneered the concept of home equity conversion (reverse mortgages) in the United States and has developed innovative approaches to the funding of Social Security benefits and long-term care.”
I had hoped the “Selected Bibliography” would accomplish this. Is there any specific change you could suggest? The goal was not to illustrate Dr. Chen’s prolific writing per se but the importance and influence of his ideas within his areas of contribution, which I felt had been accomplished by the existing subsections, as documented by the References (see following point) and supplemented with the Bibliography.
Yes, they are the References. I had erroneously omitted that heading. This has been corrected.
Thank you. This has been corrected.
I can edit the article to eliminate these from the References, but I remain slightly confused by the policy, as I have found numerous articles with Reference lists that include some of the subject’s publications (i.e., separate from a bibliography); some examples are: /info/en/?search=Alvin_E._Roth, /info/en/?search=Jeffrey_Sachs, /info/en/?search=David_Card. I understood the previous reviewer’s feedback, and in this draft limited such citations to a relatively small proportion of the total References (8 of 45), and attempted to do so only in the context of a “jumping-off point” (e.g., as in the beginning of the “Work and retirement options for older workers” section) about an idea or concept that was subsequently influential and commented on by others, as also documented and referenced. Also in response to the previous reviewer, I greatly expanded the number of external references to the subject’s work. Is there any further light you can shed on this issue for me, or perhaps reconsider whether a few of the subjects own citations can be acceptable in context, as they appear to be in other articles?
Understood, and I have now read the Wikilinks help material. Do you have any suggestions as to what extent and what types of things should be Wikilinked, i.e., just the major concepts (reverse mortgage, Social Security, etc.), or every possible link (names of universities, etc.)?
I will be appreciative of any further advice or guidance you can provide on the above. Thank you for your openness to this dialogue. Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. No need to rush on this. Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yung-Ping Chen redirect. |
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
I am copying and pasting conversation from my talk page to this page in order to ease conversation on the development of this article. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Your comments and explanations are very much appreciated and will be of great help in preparing a revised version. Should the proposed revision, when ready, be further discussed with you or should I just resubmit it through the normal process (presumably to another reviewer)? Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Is this where I can dialog with Timtrent about a rejected submission, so I can get a better idea of how to fix it? Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 10:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Will do; thanks. Is this the correct mode for dialogue (going into Editing User Talk within my section)? Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 00:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful. Below I have indicated my questions/comments below each of your review points (in bold):
I have read your piece on “A Good Article”; thank you; this was very helpful. I had previously read the general guidelines on creating articles and associated material (re tone, style, notability criteria, etc.) and attempted to be consistent with these. I tried to model this piece, in terms of both structure and content, on existing Wikipedia articles from the comparable domain (contemporary economists and social scientists). Evidently, it’s still not quite there. There was language in the first submission that may have better established “notability” but I edited out much of this for the 2nd submission in view of the earlier reviewer’s feedback regarding writing from a neutral point of view and in an encyclopedic manner. For the next revision I have added a new 2nd sentence at the article’s beginning: “He pioneered the concept of home equity conversion (reverse mortgages) in the United States and has developed innovative approaches to the funding of Social Security benefits and long-term care.”
I had hoped the “Selected Bibliography” would accomplish this. Is there any specific change you could suggest? The goal was not to illustrate Dr. Chen’s prolific writing per se but the importance and influence of his ideas within his areas of contribution, which I felt had been accomplished by the existing subsections, as documented by the References (see following point) and supplemented with the Bibliography.
Yes, they are the References. I had erroneously omitted that heading. This has been corrected.
Thank you. This has been corrected.
I can edit the article to eliminate these from the References, but I remain slightly confused by the policy, as I have found numerous articles with Reference lists that include some of the subject’s publications (i.e., separate from a bibliography); some examples are: /info/en/?search=Alvin_E._Roth, /info/en/?search=Jeffrey_Sachs, /info/en/?search=David_Card. I understood the previous reviewer’s feedback, and in this draft limited such citations to a relatively small proportion of the total References (8 of 45), and attempted to do so only in the context of a “jumping-off point” (e.g., as in the beginning of the “Work and retirement options for older workers” section) about an idea or concept that was subsequently influential and commented on by others, as also documented and referenced. Also in response to the previous reviewer, I greatly expanded the number of external references to the subject’s work. Is there any further light you can shed on this issue for me, or perhaps reconsider whether a few of the subjects own citations can be acceptable in context, as they appear to be in other articles?
Understood, and I have now read the Wikilinks help material. Do you have any suggestions as to what extent and what types of things should be Wikilinked, i.e., just the major concepts (reverse mortgage, Social Security, etc.), or every possible link (names of universities, etc.)?
I will be appreciative of any further advice or guidance you can provide on the above. Thank you for your openness to this dialogue. Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. No need to rush on this. Kpearlman1122 ( talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)