Template:Did you know nominations/Choosing Wisely

17x17px 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 know12x12px (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).

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewing guide WMFLabs Dup detector Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count Reviewers' template Disambig links External links Find sources (notability)

Choosing Wisely

• ( Back to T:TDYK
• Article history )

• ... that individual patients, doctors, and organizations are questioning waste in health care in the United States through the Choosing Wisely campaign?

• Reviewed: Graph power, Madura Station, Cape Cod Expressway

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)