Talk:Christoph Clauser

I received the reviewer's comments and tried to honor his suggestions. However, his criticism is rather unspecific. I asked to name the specific items which he found inadequate but did not receive helpful information yet. I appreciate any information which may help me understand his objections ZAYBXC (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Trex32: in your edit summary you wrote "prof - Submission is about a professor not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" and in the comment "I also suggest you review this page to improve potential resubmission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)" but the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC, specifically their election to the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina satisfies criteria #3. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much let me amend. Thanks for the feedback @Horse Eye's Back. Appreciate it Trex32 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you also be surprised to hear that the article is largely in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Trex32: Also are you an authorized page reviewer? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Horse Eye's Back I just have permission to review drafts as part of the AfC process. I have made light copy edits to this article and resubmitted on the authors behalf. When I reviewed the article there was not a inline reference to German National Academy of Sciences. I have since added two references to validate that sentence. Thanks for the feedback. I am still learning. In the future I will directly add the references myself. In my own journey, I would get rejected and then figure out from various resources how to improve the submissions. So I am grateful for all the feedback. Thank you, very grateful Trex32 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: See WP:BLP. Statements, starting with the date of birth, need to be sourced or removed.
  Note also broken wikilinks. Greenman (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Another editor pointed out that the subject meets "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" - specifically the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina which qualifies for approval.
  Elected member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina  (http://www.leopoldina.org/en/members/list‐of‐members/page/3)   
  Reference: https://www.gge.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaldcqgc
  @HorseEye'sBack. Thanks for the call-out Trex32 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Also if this a self submission, I would not potential COI. Thanks again for the submission Trex32 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I also suggest you review this page to improve potential resubmission.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Trex32 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear author, Thank your for the submission. I suggest continue to add additional high quality references and improve the language to be appropriate for encyclopedic quality. I have found the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse resource very helpful to help improve the quality of first article submissions. I can also provide a few inline comment/suggestions. Thanks for the opportunity to review Trex32 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Editor has not made a serious attempt to rectify the previous problems. In fact the article is now worse because incorrect inline links have been added. I prefer not to review twice; this looks like an obvious decline. If offered the same way a third time reject becomes an option. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: He may well pass notability under #C1, although I am not certain. More critical gor the moment far too much of this is unsourced, the only references being his. Truly independent sources are needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)