Jump to content

Talk:Alice Motion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominated for DYK

[edit]

Page at Template:Did you know nominations/Todd and Motion EdChem (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew H. Todd, Alice Motion

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
Professor Matt Todd
Professor Matt Todd
  • Comment: (1) I've offered ALTs to try for an informative and clear under-200 character wording. I think it is desirable to name the school involved, and also Turing if possible. Alternatives welcome.
    (2) Pkin8541 is new to DYK and fairly new to WP.
    (3) Todd article written in Draft space and moved to article space by Hughesdarren on 22 April 2019 – added to DYK nomination page for 22 April
    (4) Motion article written in Draft space and moved to article space by Pkin8541 on 24 April 2019
    (5) I (EdChem) will need to provide two QPQ reviews.

Created/expanded by Pkin8541 (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 02:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's important to quickly mention that it was price-hiked - some drugs are more expensive because there's a smaller number of people needing it, for example.

Pkin8541 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: No - Not yet? @EdChem:
Overall: Articles look good. I've suggested ALT6 below. Thoughts? @Pkin8541: Axem Titanium (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: I like it with a minor change to "synthesised it for less than 0.1%" Pkin8541 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me for ALT7. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: everything else besides the QPQ are good to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that EdChem has taken a wikibreak of sorts, but it seems a shame not to promote this one, especially considering that the primary author of both articles, Pkin8541, is a DYK newbie (EdChem only assisted with the nomination itself). I'm inclined to IAR and waive the QPQ requirements. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly sorry, Axem Titanium, but I can't recall the last time a QPQ was waived, especially for two articles. We specifically closed the loophole a few years back and made nominators responsible for supplying QPQs, and given how many nominations are crying out for a review (probably 100+), I would be opposed to allowing an exception here. If someone would like to donate two QPQs to the cause in EdChem's absence, that's fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If @Pkin8541: would like to help review a DYK for the QPQ, that would work too. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear why you're trying to tell the whole story in the hook rather than dangling a line (or "hook") to get readers to click on the article. All these hooks are also pushing 200 characters and are not easy to parse. Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to donate some of my unused QPQs for this nomination. With that said, has it been considered that, if it will be difficult to have an acceptable hook with both articles, what could instead be done is to write two separate hooks for each of the DYK subjects? Another option, if possible, could be to simply drop the pharmaceutical angle and go in a new direction. @EdChem, Pkin8541, Axem Titanium, BlueMoonset, and Yoninah:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies to all involved, I have been swamped in the real world and horrified by the WMF and the Fram thing and so not logging in and just watching as an IP when I've had time. Were these my articles / expansions, I would see the nominations being failed for lack of QPQ as fair, but as has been noted, I nominated them to recognise the work of Pkin8541, a new editor. I am comfortable with Narutolovehinata5 donating QPQs and replacing me as nominator, and I agree with BlueMoonset that waiving QPQs as Pkin8541 is a new editor is not justified because I am not a new editor and am well aware of the DYK rules (though I appreciate Axem Titanium's suggestion and concur with its intent). An alternative of treating the nomination as a self-nom and using 2 of Pkin8541's QPQ-free DYKs (by removing my nominator credits) is also a solution I would accept. I did do some minor editing of the articles / references for the DYK nomination but the main page appearance giving me no credits is fine – the WMF already has me doubting whether to continue as a Wikipedian, sadly. Having said that, I could do the QPQs within a few days... but I don't feel entitled to any more latitude than has already been given and will understand and accept a promotion to queues that sees me go uncredited.
  • On the hook, I think the later ALTs should refer to "the Sydney Grammar students who synthesised it" rather than "the Sydney Grammar students that synthesised it." My original wording had "the group ... that", and possibly should have been "the group ... who", but I certainly think that "the students ... who" is far preferable to "the students ... that". ALT7 should also say "less than 0.1%" rather than "less 0.1%", in order to make sense. On hook length, I agree with Yoninah on length and complexity and struggled for a "hooky" hook that was shorter but still meaningful. Suggestions welcome. In the meantime:
  • ALT7a: ... that after pyrimethamine was price hiked by 5000%, Matthew H. Todd (pictured) and Alice Motion supported the Sydney Grammar students who synthesised it for under 0.1% of its retail cost?
  • ALT8: ... that after pyrimethamine was price hiked by 5000%, Matthew H. Todd (pictured) and Alice Motion supported the Sydney Grammar students who synthesised it cheaply?
  • ALT8a: ... that after pyrimethamine was price hiked by 5000%, Matthew H. Todd (pictured) and Alice Motion supported the Sydney Grammar students who showed it could be synthesised cheaply?
Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, Todd is British but was working at the University of Sydney at the time, as was Motion, who is Australian... I did wonder about adding "chemists" or "chemistry academics", or perhaps "Sydney University chemists", as in:
I also wonder if the surprise that the synthesis was done by high school students is unclear for those who don't know that Sydney Grammar is a high school (albeit an elite academically selective one), and have wondered about something like:
EdChem (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could donate, but only if EdChem says they will be unable to do so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That QPQ is far enough advanced to count (the initial review needs to be complete; no need to wait for all issues to be settled). Only one more remaining, EdChem; thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to suggest as a best practice, that if multiple people are presented as equal partners in a DYK hook, that an accompanying photo should show all of them. This is not an objection to passing this DYK, and I think it is unlikely to become an issue on the main page since only one photo is included in each set of DYKs, but I found it very irritating to see that only one of the two academics mentioned was pictured (and yes, the one omitted was the woman.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I agree with Mary Mark Ockerbloom. Because both people are bold-linked but only one is shown, I was planning to promote it to a non-image slot. In other cases, where the image shows the only bold-linked subject in the hook, I don't think it would be a problem to run it with an image. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_Motion&oldid=1209205183"