User talk:Creatorhj244

Please don’t bite me, I’m a newbie!

I’m a university student in a Wikipedia Education class, and I’m currently learning how to contribute to Wikipedia.
I am approaching my subject in good faith.

If you have any concerns or questions, my tutor’s name is Airbubbles_451 (talk · contribs). Thanks!

October 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to S Club 7—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate it. I am working on a Wikipedia unit for the University of Sydney so i am still learning. Any other feedback about edits I make would be very helpful! Creatorhj244 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi Creatorhj244! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 00:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to your contributions. Coconutoil4eva (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Keep up the great work! Fransplace (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple use of same ref[edit]

You and other students in this project are incorrectly treating repeated uses of the same ref as separate refs, each with a number. There is a method for multiple uses as a ref with one number. Please have your teacher instruct all the students how to do this. As example, I did it for ref now #13. David notMD (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David notMD! I appreciate your help greatly. Please, if you find any other issues with my article let me know how to correct them. I am learning and would appreciate all the help :) Creatorhj244 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12 are all the same ref. Not only is it incomplete, but ResearchGate is not considered a reliable source reference. Delete and replace. For basic facts (# campus, departments), the university website can be used. Also, don't list neonatal equipment. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was under the impression that the website of the university couldn't be used as it was a source that could potentially be biased. Would you recommend removing this information if I cannot find another source to corroborate the facts? Thank you for your help David notMD this is very useful. I have a question regarding uploading media. If I don't have my pictures or media created myself, what would you recommend as a good alternative? Creatorhj244 (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The university website can be used for substantiation of simple facts, such as number and names of campuses. It cannot be used for content about mission statement, plans for growth, subjectively-worded descriptions of excellence... I suspect any image you find on line is copyright protected, thus cannot be used. I checked Wikipedia Commons and there are no photos already available there. I deleted the entire section you added about a research trial. This goes beyond what belongs in an article (imagine an article on Harvard University Medical School containing descriptions of all research). David notMD (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David notMD this is very helpful. In terms of adding media, as all the photos are copyright protected, do you have any suggestions on what I could include? I am completing this as part of a University assignment and media is a marking aspect. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Creatorhj244 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest stating that you looked and there were no images at Wikipedia Commons. David notMD (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, some feeback on your project "Lagos University Teaching Hospital"[edit]

I read on the Teahouse that you are looking for feedback for your article project Lagos University Teaching Hospital. So very quick, here's my two cents:

- Lead section

Generally good, but has some biased formulations: "LUTH improves the health and education of Nigerians because it educates medical students, raising the quality of care accessible to its patients." Do you really know that it "improves the health of Nigerians and educates them"? I mean, yeah, obviously it's a hospital so it will improve someone's health, and if it's a teaching hospital, then yeah, it teaches. But in that regard, the information is incredibly obvious and does not belong in the lead. If, for some reason, it would have had an disproportionate impact on public health compared to all other hospitals, that might be worth mentioning in the lead, but would also need to be referenced. I would suggest rewriting it and instead simply stating that it is a teaching hospital of that university. Likewise, the current chief medical director can certainly be mentioned somewhere, but since that position is prone to change, it does not belong in the article lead (unless he is some sort of world-famous guy like e.g. Anthony Fauci, that I just haven't heard about).

- Description

Much better imo. Maybe a list of departments is not of interest to everyone, but personally I don't see anything wrong here.

- Facilities and units within LUTH

In the Neonatal Unit section, Paediatrics wikilink has minor formatting issues (extra brackets), and there is an extra space between the first paragraph and reference number 6 (super nit-picky, I know ^^). Otherwise looking good imo. Maybe a bit excessive detail on staffing, but idk if this is bad (not an expert on hospitals). But: If you say "currently", ALWAYS include the reference time! Just put a note there, or say "As of 2020, there are 4 Neonatologists, ..." That way, the information can date, and in 2055 people will not assume you are talking about their current year. My automated helper-thingy flags source number 4 (Poluyi in "Intensive and Critical Care") as an unreliable source because the journal or publisher has been called predatory. Maybe check again if that is indeed the case? I'm not an expert in medical journals, and have made that mistake before myself (which is why I am running this helper - if you are interested in it, info about it is located here: Wikipedia:UPSD).

-History

The smaller section at the top does seem to repeat stuff discussed further down. Maybe remove it, and put the years (which are the only thing not repeated) into the corresponding sentences below? Also, having a single subheading does then make even less sense than before. As a rule of thumb, you would only need subheadings if you have two or more of them. Just scrap "Commission on Post-secondary Education in Nigeria"

-Education

Same as for history, you don't really need a subheading here. Also, references 12 and 13 are still the same basically (but you had already been given feedback on that iirc, so just remember to change it), and really you don't need to repeat that in the same paragraph if it is the same source, just out it at the end once unless there's an outrageous claim that you feel needs to be referenced immediately (e.g. if the hospital would also be offering law degrees and training as astronauts - then better put a source immediately after the sentence ^^)

-Research projects and health initiatives

Looking good in general, not sure about the double subheading of HIV and then APIN, but it looks acceptable for me personally. Same minor issue as in facilities section, include date when talking about "current"! That only applies to the last sentence, where I assume "It has noT" is a typo and meant to read "It has noW", in which case you again would have to state "As of 2020 it has" (or from whatever year that assessment stems).

-Categories

Often overlooked, properly categorizing helps put an article into wider context. Best practice is to avoid very general categories, and chose ones that are narrow, but still appropriate. As such, I would advise to switch "HIV/AIDS" to "HIV/AIDS research organisations", remove Africa (there a bazillion articles in Africa, that category would blow up beyond measure if every article would be in that category!). Likewise replace "Nursing" with "Nursing in Nigeria", and remove "Public Health by country" (that really can be inferred from it being a hospital in Nigeria). I'll leave it to you to figure out what to do with "Pharmacology" (too broad), "Health Research" (too broad) and "Intensive care medicine" (too broad).

Conclusion Certainly not a bad article in general, and as a novice/intermediate editor I can't give much criticism (though a veteran editor might). Articles can always be improved, but atm this is looking quite solid. Good luck with your project :) --LordPeterII (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More feedback[edit]

I left a new comment on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And upgraded the article from Stub to Start. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel like this is already halfway towards C class. With a tiny bit more work, it would not feel like Start class anymore. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LordPeterII I have revised the article further. Please could you evaluate whether it meets C Class? Thank you! Creatorhj244 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]