Template:Did you know nominations/Choosing Wisely

Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Choosing Wisely's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 09:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC).

Choosing Wisely

edit

Created/expanded by User:Bluerasberry (talk). Nominated by Bluerasberry (talk) at 15:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

  • I was paid as an employee to write this article. I put it through AfC and it just went live today. I am aware of the history of what happened with Gibraltar on DYK, and the controversy associated with people receiving pay as they participate in Wikipedia. I am also a Wikipedian and if I had not been paid to write this article, I would have submitted it to DYK in any case. I feel that this campaign is timely as it is in the news currently, and I did my best to make a good article, and aside from the strange relations between DYK and paid editors, I feel like I am making a good DYK submission for the community to review and approve or reject as is usual. I would like to think that my submission here would be peacefully considered as an example of transparency and a step toward good practices. Thanks for considering it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace on nomination date. --George Ho (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not able to comment on the politics of promoting an article that was written by a paid editor, but I will review the page on its own merit.
The article is new enough, good length, and well written. I do see one typo that I cannot correct because I do not understand your intent. In the Difficulties section, the third bullet point says "Since and doctors ...". I had to AGF on the JAMA source, but spot checking the other sources looked fine. The content seemed well balanced. Once that one typo is corrected I have no other concerns. Allecher (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I corrected the typo which you found and feel that I have answered your only concern.
I regret that sources related to health campaign and so many aspects of medicine are behind paywalled journals because this goes beyond Wikipedia; the general public ought to have access to information about their health and government and too much information is not open access. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, you have addressed my concerns. This one is good to go. Allecher (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)