Talk:Sandhill dunnart

Materials from User:Dr Joanna Riley

(pinging all recent editors to the article: @Dr Joanna Riley: @UtherSRG: @Tylbrooks1998: @Achmad Rachmani:)

There is apparent disagreement about including the content from User:Dr Joanna Riley. I am starting this discussions to bring together disparate discussions regarding this issue. Please discuss. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Responding to comments from Dr Joanna Riley at various locations: You noted "This is how science works". Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. We are an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, including papers...even if peer reviewed. I understand your desire to republish your work here, but in its current form we would not accept it. WP:SELFCITE also applies here.

I want to make it very, very clear here that your work is absolutely welcome here. Subject area experts have frequently contributed to Wikipedia over the 20+ years of its existence, and having such people is highly important to the success of the project. Given the lack of research on this species except by you, it is highly likely you are the preeminent scientist in the world on this subject. We need your input. The obstacle isn't the work you have done. What we need to do is to distill it into an encyclopedic form. I welcome other's input before we continue. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft.

I'm not sure how to do this if someone can just delete all of the sections I have added. I am happy for them to rephrase and collaborate.

However, removing all the recent science and references to peer reviewed articles should not be allowed.

Could we revert it to my version and have the person edit it in a reasonable manner?

Many thanks,

Jo Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dr Joanna Riley: No, if your version includes self promotion. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of the information provided may be appropriate if placed under the appropriate headers, but also, some of it is already present in the article and supported by existing sources. Threats section could be expanded with the projected habitat loss information if the meaning of "SDMs" and "Representative Concentration Pathway" are clarified, but again, much of the broad information is already present and the specifics won't be interpreted by many readers. Reconrabbit 15:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There is useful material here, but it can be condensed into one paragraph that reports the salient points in the paper that are not yet covered in the article, and leaves out essentially all the methodological details, as well as the name drops. Encyclopedic style is quite different to even a paper abstract, in that the reader is principally only interested in a few bullets about the main results, and expected to look up anything beyond that in the publication itself. If no one does before then, I will write a suggested version tomorrow. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everyone's points: that it is amazing work and hopefully it can be added to this page in an encyclopedic way, and I personally hope this doesn't dissuade you from future editing. As a side note since you mentioned it on my page, but I am not the one who deleted your edits. I appreciate your work and User:Elmidae for being willing to help implement it in Wikipedia's style :) :) - Tylbrooks1998 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all,

Sorry to Tylbrooks1998! For some reason I thought you had deleted it!? Help editing the page would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all. Especially Elmidae if you are able to write up our results in an encyclopaedic style we would be extremely grateful.

One of my main issues is that 'Arkive' is referenced repeatedly and it is a website that is out of date and incorrect in places.

Historically, there were serious issues with sandhill dunnart surveys as the preferred habitats were not described correctly. Several surveys failed to detect the species in areas where they are present. Projects were then approved in core habitats without conditions.

We worked really hard over the past 10 years to produce robust science on the sandhill dunnart. However, we have not been accredited for our work. I think when we started, Wikipedia basically said "sandhill dunnarts nest in spinifex hummocks that are 8 years old and we don’t know much". Hence, my thesis and papers!

We need to use the science to get it right. And we believe that the fair thing should be credit where credit is due.

I hope I can assist with this process. My 3 year old has thrown up all over me last night and this morning - so perhaps not today!!

Many thanks again for your help. 😊 Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

All right, I have incorporated the main points from the added material in various sections, and cleaned up some less-than-stellar older passages at the same time. I have cited this material to the two papers that I think contain the main body of information - the behavioural/habitat field study, and the Maxent/forecast study (there's usually no need to cite a thesis if the contents have subsequently been published in journals). @Dr Joanna Riley: could you check whether those are the correct sources to cite for the respective passages? Also, if you are aware that the Arkive data are incorrect or outdated, please do go ahead and replace and/or qualify them! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, looks good! Thanks so much! Hoping to get onto this a bit more tomorrow. Hopefully my editing will be better than previously! Thanks all for your help. 🙂 Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation errors

Hi there,

Someone (or something; bot?) is editing the citations and I'm not sure how to fix it easily!

Number 17 should be:

https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acv.12696

Many thanks!

Jo :) Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, so far as I could. However, one reference anchor (":5") I couldn't resolve - that name seems to have been left over from a previous version and I couldn't see which publication it was meant to refer to. The relevant sentence is: Translocations to reserves in climatic refuges or to artificial desert ecosystems may be required. Could you insert the correct cite? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Elmidae!! Will do! :) Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)