Hi SportsNeuropsychology100! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi SportsNeuropsychology100! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 30 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 WikiOriginal-9 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:
Not enough significant, independent coverage.
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:Rosemarie Scolaro Moser 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.
Hello, SportsNeuropsychology100!
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! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 09:32, 5 November 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 Oltrepier were:
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:Rosemarie Scolaro Moser 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Utopes were:
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:
There is no reason to be using youtube videos, amazon links, and a "find a doctor" directory as references for a Wikipedia article. What are the three best sources that are reliable publishers, independent from the subject, provide significant coverage, and demonstrate why this individual is notable?
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:Rosemarie Scolaro Moser 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 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:
Not clear how she passes WP:NPROF. Not seeing independent, in-depth coverage either.
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:Rosemarie Scolaro Moser 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.
We have not added facts such as 1) Faculty at University of Penna, 2) Faculty at Widener University and other positions or other important facts in past because there is no online reference to refer to as a source. Colleagues such as WIKI pages of Jon Baron and Eileen Kennedy have much less independent sources or in-depth coverage. Thus, it is difficult to understand how the Moser entry has less than those. Please explain specifically as that would be extremely helpful. Have already read through the instructional pages repeatedly. I would be interested in helping as a WIKI editor at some point, but the process seems very subjective, and I have not been able to master this page. Please respond. thank you. SportsNeuropsychology100 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We" are Moser and staff (Moser, two docs and COO) at Sports Concussion Center of New Jersey who help put this together. Thanks for the clarification on Baron. I appreciate that. OK, so does that allow Baron to use his own vita as a source? Also, I would like to know about Eileen Kennedy-Moore?
Right now, I am responding (Moser). It was not great to see the reviewer indicating I should die first. Anyway, the sports neuropsychology field is very specialized and small. I have edited the entry again to emphasize that I am a female in this predominantly male field who some refer to now as the grandmother of sports neuropsychology...I can't provide a citation, unless you would like me to simply quote some colleagues.
Thank you for clearing that up. Wikipedia requires that each editor of an article has their own account - one cannot be shared by multiple people.
Regarding Baron, yes, because WP:NACADEMIC says "Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details."
Re the 'botttom line', writing a Wikipedia article is hard. We recommend helping improve other articles first, so that you learn Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and manual of style. Writing a biography is harder still, and writing an autobiography is not recommended at all - see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you insist on trying to write about yourself without the requisite experience of writing about subjects you're not conflicted on first then you can expect a bit of a bumpy ride. Advice from the Wikipedia community is generally to step back and let someone else who has never met you write about your life. Wikipedia isn't a place for self-promotion. See WP:OTHEROUTLETS. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information. I have been reading and re-reading the policies and guidelines. That is why I consulted staff at our Center to review the submission to be objective and factual as ethics and bias are things to be concerned about. As a scientist and being published, I am keen on that, even have taught workshops on ethics and presentations and articles. I also realized from the guidelines that anyone I ask (this is a pretty small field, and I am at the top of it) knows me too, so that does not qualify for independence. I was contacted by one of those "services" that guarantees acceptance if you pay...I refused that..paying someone is a COI. The posting is for posterity and documentation. Learning a lot. You have been helpful. Best wishes! SportsNeuropsychology100 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia has an ongoing issue with scammers claiming they can help get a biography published, it would be very helpful if you could read WP:SCAM and then forward the email you received as an attachment to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:18, 20 November 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 Chris troutman 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:
Subject fails WP:NPROF and arguably fails WP:ANYBIO because none of the awards won are notable. Too many of the cites are not-independent of the subject. What the subject wrote does not connote notability unless if the publication was notable. Please wait until the subject dies.
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:Rosemarie Scolaro Moser 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.
Moser is the first female to receive the Distinguished Career Award from the Sports Neuropsychology Society. She is the first female sports neuropsychologist to be elected (not appointed) to the Sports Neuropsychology Society. She is also the first female sports neuropsychologist, as a primary author, to publish seminal research on youth concussion in her field. Some in the field have referred to her as the grandmother of sports neuropsychology. In addition, the Award from the National Register of Psychologist Providers is highly esteemed in the field of psychology.
Sports Neuropsychology is a small specialty but very significant as it began with the introduction of concussion programs in the NHL in the 1990's. And then there was the development of ImPACT which is now used for concussion baselining in schools, universities, and sports around the world.
Could you please address why entries such as Jon Baron and Eileen Kennedy-Moore are allowed when their pages are less well sourced and contact non-independent sources? By the way, they are not DEAD yet.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:
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:Rosemarie Scolaro Moser 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.
