User talk:TheFlyingPhysicist

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefano Profumo (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ldm1954 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

His career needs sources, plus reference 4 needs to be replaced by a full source, it cannot be just a pdf.

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:Stefano Profumo 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TheFlyingPhysicist! 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! Ldm1954 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefano Profumo (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ldm1954 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There was an edit conflict. The recent revisions of the sources are very lazy. Orcid us self published, and does not provide encyclopedic content. Other sources added are also weak. We require the same quality control as PRL. This is not ricket science.

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:Stefano Profumo 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ldm1954 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Hello, and thank you very much for taking the time to review this draft. I sincerely apologize for the earlier version — I’m a new contributor and still learning how to meet Wikipedia’s standards properly.

I’ve since made extensive edits and worked hard to align the article with Wikipedia’s sourcing and style guidelines:

• Added numerous reliable, independent secondary sources (news coverage, science media, and journal/publisher pages).

• Removed self-published and affiliated references.

• Reformatted all citations using {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) and {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help), with full metadata and DOIs.

• Consolidated duplicate references and ensured punctuation precedes citations.

• Tightened the tone for neutrality and encyclopedic style.

• Added WikiProject tags and a proper short description.

I truly care about improving this article and want to make sure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

If you have any further suggestions or see areas that still fall short, I would be very grateful for your guidance — I’m eager to learn from the feedback and continue improving. TheFlyingPhysicist (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Much better. I converted a couple of the refs to more complete forms, please check them.

The "popular science press" refs [6]-[17] is what we call WP:Refbomb, i.e. too many when 1-3 is enough. You want to focus on only "major" journals, and try and avoid churnalism and use of his university press releases. Perhaps just RAS, Space.com, Popular Mechanics. (Be aware that nowadays many academics are quite good at hitting the popular science press.)

I suggest tweaking those then resubmit, he passes WP:NPROF because of the APS Fellow. I generally do not review twice unless I have to (e.g nobody reviews it for some months or does a silly decline). If something odd happens ping me. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Thank you so much for guiding me through the process, I am learning a lot. I have followed your suggestions and reduced the "popular science press" refs to the suggested three.

With gratitude. TheFlyingPhysicist (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: since as I mentioned I am new to the process, what should I be looking forward to at this point? A second review? Thanks again for your help! TheFlyingPhysicist (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably just a straight accept. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! TheFlyingPhysicist (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)