User talk:NeuroSciego

Hello, NeuroSciego, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 18:34, 11 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 Utopes was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

This subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources at the time of writing. This could be in part due to the publication being founded earlier this year (2023) so there may not have been enough time to gain secondary coverage, but currently the

notability of this subject

has yet to be established.

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:Imaging Neuroscience 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.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the criteria for secondary published sources, the article for

Neuroimage contains 7 references of which 5 (five!) are about the events that led to the creation of Imaging Neuroscience. NeuroSciego (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, NeuroSciego! 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! Utopes (talk / cont) 05:20, 12 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 DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

I don't think the sources still satisfy

WP:NJOURNALS

instead?

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:Imaging Neuroscience 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear review. I understand this journal is notable as per

WP:NJOURNALS. The reliable sources cited imply this is the spiritual successor to NeuroImage owing to the fact that the whole editorial board of that journal resigned and founded this one. It has been listed both in WorldCat and ISSN. Additionally, the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, one of the foremost organizations in its subject area, has hosted a podcast

about the journal that I was not sure how to cite. All in all, this is currently considered one of (if not the) most influential journal on neuroimaging which can be seen by the fact that the leading authors of the field have been publishing more that 100 papers through it.

I hope I have sourced reliably enough to showcase the notability of the subject. Barred that, only indexing by the most selective aggregators would meet the threshold, I think. NeuroSciego (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]