Draft talk:Fluorescence upconversion

This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Physics Physics portal This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Optics (defunct) This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Optics, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.

Feedback from New Page Review process

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)[reply]

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)[reply]