Talk:SDTM

Primary sources

This article relies on primary source i.e., SDTM IGs because its standard source of reference in the field. Everyone working on the field works on basing this IG. I don't think this primary source is unreliable and Noway there will be another more reliable source than the Implementation guides. Because those 3rd party references should also refer SDTM, and in fact their authenticity depends on their understanding over the IG.
I wanted to improve the article, So I need help from someone who has better understanding on citing sources.--Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pavan santhosh.s:In my opinion, an admin can't help and the template should be {{help}}. You need to hunt for the citations. And improve the article. There is no restriction for you to add trustworthy sources, still I will leave the help template open. An admin will provide a better answer, and I don't have a right to modify it.
117.217.116.43 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REF for what and how to deal with it.
117.222.91.108 (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable secondary sources available which talk about the SDTM. Start with these and then just keep looking... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph = just someone's personal opinion?

--134.147.252.139 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@ThomasSGuinter: I'll be removing the paragraph you added to our article SDTM, as it doesn't comply with wikipedia guidelines for sources for information in our articles, unless you can source the facts in the paragraph to conform with wikipedia's standards, as outlined below.

If you could locate sources: - other than otherwise unpublished essays on your own experience, which is defined as "original research" in the guideline WP:OR and cannot be used, ever, in wikipedia, - not otherwise unpublished essays on their own experience from your fellow members of the CDISC SDS Team, which would be primary sources according to WP:PRIMARY and cannot be the only source for an assertion in Wikipedia, and - which comply with the guidelines in WP:ANALYSIS - usually observations on the same subject you discuss in the paragraph you wrote, by people who are not associated with the CDISC SDS Team, we could use those sources.

Now, if you or one of your fellow CDISC SDS Team members published an analysis similar to your paragraph in a publication emanating from outside the CDISC SDS Team (say, a Drug Information Association publication) it could be usable in one of our articles. The subject matter of our article SDTM is such that we might not find a source analyzing the subject matter written by someone outside your group.

Wikipedia:Party_and_person defines some examples of how you or your fellow team members might cite your own experience - basically published in a source other than your own organization. Reviews of the literature and analysis comparing SDTM with other standards - again, submitted and accepted for publication outside your organization are examples of material written by you or your fellow team members which could qualify as acceptable secondary sources (which we prefer for verification of facts in our articles).

Those sources must document each significant fact mentioned in the paragraph you submitted.

I hope that you revisit that last paragraph and locate secondary sources or tertiary sources as defined in WP:ANALYSIS to support each fact in your paragraph, citing the sources (the WP:ProveIt utility makes that mostly painless), that would make this article better.

We'd like to have the information in that paragraph you wrote, but each fact in it has to have a source published outside the CDISC SDS Team organization to satisfy our criteria for verifiability.

Thanks! loupgarous (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Regretfully, here it is, 20 May 2018, and none of the requested changes were made to the section in the section we've discussed. It's WP:OR - an essay based on a wikipedia editor's personal perspectives and experience. We can't use material like that. What I asked for was material based on publication in fora outside your organization with the same analysis as that essay you added to our article. A month has passed, and nothing's changed. So I deleted your essay in its entirety.

We welcome a change to the article which meets wikipedia standards, as I described above. I'm sure that if your observations are notable enough to be part of the article, there'll be published reliable sources somewhere to support them. loupgarous (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)