This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please see Talk: Biologically inspired engineering#Bionics for a proposed merger of that short article into Bionics. I am notifying it here as this article seems to be the only other one that uses the same phrase. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
While the Wyss Institute seems to be rather new, it appears that all of the institutes at Harvard listed in the infobox here on Wikipedia have pages; is this alone enough for it to pass the notability threshold? UnknownCytoplasm ( talk) 02:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything except that the institute exists. The draft contains a great deal of information, but also has a long history of promotion. Common sense, which has been in short supply, needs to be used. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@ DGG, @ Chrisvanlang @ Star Mississippi @ Robert McClenon @ MaynardClark @ UnknownCytoplasm @ Theroadislong
Hi everyone,
As noted on the Draft talk page, the Draft has been thoroughly rewritten, cut down, and neutralized.
I believe I have responded in good faith to DGG's initial edit request review including addressing notability concerns and WP:CRYSTAL issues--those are now resolved. The new version is as tight and non-promotional as possible while incorporating nearly 50 reliable sources that discuss the subject.
I think the Draft sections on Scientific Developments and Response to Covid are appropriate improvements for the main article.
I propose someone else who has reviewed and approves of the Draft version, such as Chrisvanlang, move those two sections into the main article (which is a sad stub). Any objections?
Thanks, Seth S.A.Kroll ( talk) 20:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
In exploring what has come of the efforts of Wyss in response to COVID, they do not strike me as being significant enough to warrant this section.
I therefore suggest removal of this section and propose an addition of a section that discusses its funding -- Hansjörg Wyss recently gifted it $350million, that is very substantial and probably deserves a closer look.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please see Talk: Biologically inspired engineering#Bionics for a proposed merger of that short article into Bionics. I am notifying it here as this article seems to be the only other one that uses the same phrase. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
While the Wyss Institute seems to be rather new, it appears that all of the institutes at Harvard listed in the infobox here on Wikipedia have pages; is this alone enough for it to pass the notability threshold? UnknownCytoplasm ( talk) 02:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything except that the institute exists. The draft contains a great deal of information, but also has a long history of promotion. Common sense, which has been in short supply, needs to be used. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@ DGG, @ Chrisvanlang @ Star Mississippi @ Robert McClenon @ MaynardClark @ UnknownCytoplasm @ Theroadislong
Hi everyone,
As noted on the Draft talk page, the Draft has been thoroughly rewritten, cut down, and neutralized.
I believe I have responded in good faith to DGG's initial edit request review including addressing notability concerns and WP:CRYSTAL issues--those are now resolved. The new version is as tight and non-promotional as possible while incorporating nearly 50 reliable sources that discuss the subject.
I think the Draft sections on Scientific Developments and Response to Covid are appropriate improvements for the main article.
I propose someone else who has reviewed and approves of the Draft version, such as Chrisvanlang, move those two sections into the main article (which is a sad stub). Any objections?
Thanks, Seth S.A.Kroll ( talk) 20:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
In exploring what has come of the efforts of Wyss in response to COVID, they do not strike me as being significant enough to warrant this section.
I therefore suggest removal of this section and propose an addition of a section that discusses its funding -- Hansjörg Wyss recently gifted it $350million, that is very substantial and probably deserves a closer look.