Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Rafael Irizarry (scientist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 97198 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Rafael Irizarry (scientist)

[edit]
  • Comment: Happy to help modify as required, ALT1 may be more interesting for general audience.

Created/expanded by Amkilpatrick (talk). Self-nominated at 20:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC).

@Amkilpatrick: Interesting subject! New and long enough, Earwig detects no copyvios, appears to be second DYK so no QPQ review needed. The problem is there are almost no third-party sources in the article; nearly all of them are autobiographical, journal articles or other works he's an author on, or published by institutions he's affiliated with. Of the 15 sources, the only independent ones are the two Benjamin Franklin Award and the one COPSS Presidents' award one. There needs to be more independent sources for this to be within policy; see WP:SELFPUB for guidance. ALT1 looks good, and I'd also like to suggest an altered version of the original hook. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH):, thanks for looking this over, I appreciate it! I've added a couple more references which should hopefully satisfy SELFPUB (I assume that articles in peer reviewed journals are counted as SELFPUB?), see what you think. Thanks again, Amkilpatrick (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You're right that "self-published" and "independent"/"third-party" are not complete opposites; a peer-reviewed journal article by the article subject would not be self-published (because the journal publisher exercises editorial control over the content, for reputable publishers at least), but it would also not be independent (because the article subject is still the author). WP:V says to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." With the extra third-party sources I'm happy to pass this article. All three hooks check out but I prefer ALT2 because it is more succinct. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the clarification, John! Amkilpatrick (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)