Talk:Fluorescence upconversion
Add topicLatest comment: 10 months ago by Ozzwah in topic Feedback from New Page Review process
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: the page is still too rough. Almost all of the Description is unsourced, and as currently written is original research WP:Opinion which is not allowed. Also a section "Secondary sources" is not standard in the English Wikipedia, they should all be inline. Indeed, secondary sources are strongly preferred.
Ldm1954 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I have been away for some time.
- Now I wanted to check our past conversation and cannot find the messages except one.
- Is this the only message left visible?
- Could you give me the two references to your own Wikipedia pages?
- Could you please clarify what you mean with "unsourced"? I added several references to scientific journals.
- Should I understand that these are unacceptable? Should all references be Open Access only?
- Bests,
- Thomas Ozzwah (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please add a few "See Also", and also "External Links" would be good.
Ldm1954 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Dear Ldm1954,
- you asked me to add a few "See Also", and also "External Links".
- If I understood right, external links to companies are to be avoided.
- Can you give me some hint about what kind of external link could be accepted?
- Bests,
- Ozzwah Ozzwah (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)