Draft talk:Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering

Proposed merger of Biologically inspired engineering

Please see Talk: Biologically inspired engineering#Bionics for a proposed merger of that short article into Bionics. I am notifying it here as this article seems to be the only other one that uses the same phrase. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be built up, not merged. Wyss has contributed a number of cutting edge discoveries in in silico technology. Using 'a grammatical approach' to the interim text of the article-in-process makes no sense, IMO. MaynardClark (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability Concerns

While the Wyss Institute seems to be rather new, it appears that all of the institutes at Harvard listed in the infobox here on Wikipedia have pages; is this alone enough for it to pass the notability threshold? UnknownCytoplasm (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The institutes generally get added to the infobox when they are notable enough that articles get written. Harvard has dozens , if not hundreds of institutes. They also have a web site, whee they can include them all. This is a general encyclopedia , not a guide to the university. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC) .

Frankly speaking, how does an institute that generates 25% of Harvard's IP and is considered one of the top 10 most impactful biomedical research institutes in the world not considered notable?Chrisvanlang (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that was some of @Robert McClenon's point in the draft decline, although I'm not 100% sure the best route forward given the two versions. Thoughts @DGG @Z1720? Star Mississippi 18:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I've fully re-written the article – please review

Hi all,

My name is Seth and I work on the communications team at the Wyss. I apologize for not following Wikipedia’s COI protocol when I previously edited the article – I was not aware of the rules at the time. Since then I have fully disclosed my conflict of interest on my userpage.

The current version of this article is inaccurate, poorly cited, unorganized and out of date. I have gone about a total rewrite of the article in my sandbox draft.

In my new draft, I have taken serious effort to be neutral and non-promotional, basing the article only on major citations about scientific developments. I also think the new draft addresses all of the flagged issues on the article page, including notability, lack of citations, and promotional language.

I would really appreciate you looking at it, and if you find it an improvement, replacing the current page with the draft.

Best,

Seth

S.A.Kroll (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a major improvement! Unfortunately I have some tangential connections to people involved in some of the projects listed, so it's probably best if someone completely unaffiliated approves it. UnknownCytoplasm (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@UnknownCytoplasm, thank you for your feedback. I understand and respect your hesitation to review the revised Wyss Institute article. I will keep looking for another editor. S.A.Kroll (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, hello. I found you through this talk page because you reviewed another article about another Harvard organization. I see you are active at AFC. Would you be willing to review this completely new re-write, which is, as noted, from an involved editor? Thanks, Seth S.A.Kroll (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @S.A.Kroll. Thanks for the flag and using the draft process. Reading this now, although I won't have time to review such a lengthy draft (not a criticism at all) in a timely manner. Pinging @DGG & @Randykitty who also contribute in AfC and academic areas in the event they're able to weigh in. Star Mississippi 20:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Review

• The article is very different in this version, but still unacceptable, . It talks about what the institute hopes to do, not what the institute has done. This does not make for `notability -- see WP:CRYSTAL. It has no acceptable 3rd party references according to the relevant guideline, WP:NCORP. There are a few that talk about gifts of money to the institute--which are therefore not substantial, and a few interviews where the head of the institutes says whatever he might care to--which are therefore not independent. We need substantial true 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices about funding or appointments.

On the other hand, a list of notable scientists with wp articles about them is acceptable, (if they have their primary affiliation with the institute, not just that it is one of their many associations): they go in a separate section. Probably many of the others are notable also, but the articles must first be written. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering the problems with the article, I'm returning it to draft, at Draft:Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I should note that it is not very commmon that someone affiliated with an organization suceeds in writing a satisfactory NPOV enWP article about the organization. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi S.A.Kroll, because DGG moved this article to the draft space, the edit request isn't necessary anymore. Instead, you are now free to edit the draft without needing someone to evaluate each request. When this article is ready, please submit the draft for review so that a non-involved editor can look at it. Thanks and please go to the WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK if you have any questions, or post below. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little confused @DGG @Z1720. Did @S.A.Kroll's draft get moved, or the article that had been in mainspace since 2010? Not contesting, just clarifying. Thanks! Star Mississippi 18:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: The article was draftified by DGG with this edit: [1]. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Z1720. I guess I was confused by the Still not ready since as far as I can tell, it had always been in main space. Or probably just Monday brain. Star Mississippi 18:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I chose to draftfy this primarily because it should never have been in main space directly, as its a COI article and should have gone through draft. I'm not goign to try to figure out why it didn't. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

did draft space even exist in 2010? Not at all disagreeing with the move, just still slightly confused. Thanks as always for your insight @DGG Star Mississippi 13:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisvanlang I saw you re-created the article. Just making sure you're aware of this discussion/draft. No comment on content as I haven't read either version. Star Mississippi 15:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention. I'm am shocked and appalled that an article with over 200 links is not considered notable. The age of the institute should not be the sole consideration about whether or not an institute is considered notable. Chrisvanlang (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the common-sense view of notability does not apply in WP. As we use it , it's a term of art, meaing "suitable for a separate WP encyclopedic article according to our established policies and guidelines." Perhaps we made a mistake way back in using the word--the nearest equivalent to way is use it is perjaps "encyclopedia -worthy". DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:DGG that the current draft is not in condition for article space. There is now a stub article that is also not really ready for article space, for a different reason. The draft is still written from the organization's point of view, which is not surprising, given that it was written by the organization. When DGG says that it is not very common for someone associated with an organization to write a satisfactory neutral article, I think that he is engaging in deliberate understatement. It is something that doesn't happen, at least not in the real world. The stub article says only that the institute exists, and who its board is. We don't need to know who is associated with the institute, and its existence can be stated at Harvard University. I disagree with the move to draft space, for two reasons. First, there is rough consensus that long-standing articles should not be moved to draft space, even if they never were ready for article space. Second, the move out of article space only resulted in the stub being created. I don't have a well-formed opinion on what the community should do. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. @S.A.Kroll has made significant changes to the draft and has incorporated the edits made in the stub. I have resubmitted this draft for review and propose for the contents of the draft to be merged back into the currently existing article. cc @DGG, @UnknownCytoplasm, @Star Mississippi Chrisvanlang (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Science areas are well out of my depth so I'll leave it for another reviewer but thank you @Chrisvanlang and @S.A.Kroll for the work you have put into improving this content. Star Mississippi 13:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislongpinging you to this conversation for context on why there are duplicates. Is there maybe a better way to handle this? Courtesy ping too @Robert McClenon. Thanks both! Star Mississippi 16:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I do think that the current draft is an improvement, but I feel like the bulleted lists still feel more promotional than content on the average page. Much of this bulletted content could be condensed down to a single sentence or two, such as the COVID-19 response being summarized as something like "The Wyss institute was involved in several efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Institute scientists were involved in developing new COVID-19 testing strategies as well as troubleshooting and increasing access to existing tests. They were also involved in identifying existing drugs that could be used to treat COVID-19, such as amodiaquine." The existing bulleted lists are more verbose than the average reader would find useful, and make in-progress efforts seem much more noteworthy than they are likely to be.

Still, I'm a total novice to this editing process, so I'm also learning this stuff too. UnknownCytoplasm (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Areas of Research

@Chrisvanlang: Thank you for tightening the draft! I need to note that reference 6 from 2017 is out of date in terms of current areas of research, but reference 2 in the lede is correct. This means the areas of research you organized the body into are using the old categories. Does this make sense?

Thanks again, Seth S.A.Kroll (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Valid point but the formal way to do this is for Wyss to make a new publication or a Harvard Magazine article to replace their 2017 article. You're better off avoiding using Wyss website content as a source even if the old sources maybe out of date. May not matter if you go with your format in your Sandbox.

My only comment about the scientific developments is that while a lot of the achievements are impressive, they might not be considered "notable". I would pick my battles more carefully. Chrisvanlang (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisvanlang: I played with the draft in my sandbox to further simplify the body text. I removed all subheadings and organized the scientific developments chronologically. Is this helpful?

thanks, Seth S.A.Kroll (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)