This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
A fact from Basic Medicine appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Basic Medicine features North Korean propaganda?
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.
I like Alt3... except the source says Regime messages/propaganda appear throughout the journal. Saying that the entire journal is propaganda is a different thing. BorgQueen (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ack you're right about the wording...even if highly manicured, this is more for domestic use/almost actual research. I was on my phone writing that and I misremembered how I was gonna phrase it. Added it now. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead contains several claims: (1) founding date, (2) publisher, (3) level of quality. These are appropriate content for the body of the article, and should be moved there. The lead should only summarize content from the body, not make new claims.
The four sources (including the Korean news article, viewed through translation) appear reliable. Three include in-depth material directly about this journal; the fourth is a news story about one of its articles. As an article about a publication, rather than about medicine more directly, I do not think the stricter standards of WP:MEDRS should be applied to this article.
Most of the claims in the article checked out as an accurate representation of the sources, but there is one that I am unsure about. In "Research", our article states "hurt by the rise of drug-resistant mosquitos". In the source, it talks about drug-resistant malaria protozoa, not drug-resistant mosquitos. Can you check and correct, please?
This is a short article, but I'm amazed that you managed to expand it this far with appropriate sourcing. Most strong western journals do not have this level of coverage and analysis. So I think the length and depth of coverage is as good as or better than we can reasonably expect.
The only potential 3b content would be the final paragraph of "Research", covering specific articles in the journal. But as it is properly sourced and a small part of the overall article, I don't think this is problematic.
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
There is some editorial opinion (particularly about not being up to an international standard) but this is properly sourced and I think not particularly controversial.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No significant controversy visible on the article's talk page or history.
The cover image was uploaded to commons, where it appears headed for deletion (the correct outcome if it is deemed to have enough creative content to be copyrightable). However, it also exists locally, as a fair-use image with what appears to be a valid fair-use rationale.
The article is illustrated only by a fair-use image of its cover page, typical of and appropriate for an article on a journal
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Please address issues listed in 1b and 2c. If you need time to do so please let me know and I can put this review on hold to give you that time. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I've addressed 2C. Regarding 1B, the MOS guideline on lede sections states that, [a]part from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I believe stating the founding year and publisher falls within "basic facts" and since there isn't any more information available on the history of the journal, I don't think a background/history section would be justified. As for the sentence about North Korean medical journals, I've incorporated into the rest of the article. Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 06:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 is interesting enough. BorgQueen (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
