Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Science This page is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Hello, Please note that Applied science, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

I noticed the "[year] in science" articles rarely mention mathematical discoveries, but we also don't have "[year] in mathematics" articles. Are mathematical discoveries within the scope of articles about years in science? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising the same issue here as is displayed on this talk page (please make any replies there) to raise awareness of the issue. The article (mentioned in the title) has ZERO citations, there’s barely anything written, and I am seriously contemplating PROD-ing or AfD-ing the article if something isn’t done. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I'm Ábel Elekes, a Hungarian postdoc at BarabásiLab,, the research group led by Albert-László Barabási, at Northeastern University in Boston.

Our team is currently studying how scientists are represented in various information sources like Wikipedia and AI systems, focusing on biases related to gender and region.

To show how we can overcome these representation biases, we've designed an intervention study, in which we're adding 100 notable scientists to different information sources, including Wikipedia. These are highly prestigious scientists who, surprisingly, don't currently have Wikipedia pages, but should have based on their significant contributions to their fields.

We're using a web-search based AI to write the articles, but we're having trouble getting them approved by Wikipedia editors, although we feel like they are of high quality.

We're new to Wikipedia editing and could use some help. If anyone here is interested in collaborating on this project, we'd really appreciate your assistance.

Thank you! Ábel Elekesabel (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elekesabel: much caution is needed if you're using AI to write articles; please read Wikipedia:Large language models. You've already been pointed to WP:NACADEMIC. Some of the criteria there are rather subjective, I'd suggest you stick to scientists that meet the more objective critera. Clayton R. Paul was a fellow of the IEEE, which is specifically mentioned in NACADEMIC point 3 as highly selective honor that merits an article for the honoree. It may also be best to stick with people who are deceased; many notable academics don't have much of a biography written about them in their lifetimes, but an obituary can provide an over-view of their life.

Draft:Clayton R. Paul is not written in an encyclopedic style. Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery. Rather than relying on facts alone (i.e. IEEE fellowship), the article is using opinionated adjectives to assert his importance. "a testament to his exceptional impact on the field", and "contributions have left a lasting mark" are phrases that aren't keeping with an encyclopedic style. Plantdrew (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]