Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Harper"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Softlavender
imported>Softlavender
(I think this is now GTG if someone can check the QPQ situation)
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
:{{*mp}}[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article is increasingly POV in favor of one brand of vaccine over another, which Harper's own [[WP:RS]] statements do not bear out. Needs a re-write (and in my opinion, a removal of all non-[[WP:RS|RS]] material) to prevent POV. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 
:{{*mp}}[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article is increasingly POV in favor of one brand of vaccine over another, which Harper's own [[WP:RS]] statements do not bear out. Needs a re-write (and in my opinion, a removal of all non-[[WP:RS|RS]] material) to prevent POV. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
{{*mp}} [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] Update: I myself have removed the offending non-[[WP:RS]] material from the article (''Sunday Express'' tabloid nonsense; Bad Science blog entries), and made a few changes to the article. As long as the tabloid and BS blog material stays out of the article, it's balanced and accurate. I think this is now a good and accurate hook; article is good and well sourced, everything else checks out. If someone more experienced in DYK can check whether a QPQ was warranted, I think this is good to go as long as the nominator does not restore the non-RS material. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 15:11, 29 August 2013

Diane Harper

  • ... that Diane Harper, who formerly worked on the clinical trials of the HPV vaccine, has since questioned the vaccine's safety and efficacy?

Created/expanded by Jinkinson (talk). Self nominated at 11:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Observation: I think the heading "Opposition to Gardasil" should possibly be changed to "Opposition to HPV vaccine[s]" per the citations and per the fact she was involved in investigations for other HPV vaccines besides Gardasil. To focus on Gardasil alone seems possibly non-neutral POV regarding Merck. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is increasingly POV in favor of one brand of vaccine over another, which Harper's own WP:RS statements do not bear out. Needs a re-write (and in my opinion, a removal of all non-RS material) to prevent POV. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Symbol voting keep.svg Update: I myself have removed the offending non-WP:RS material from the article (Sunday Express tabloid nonsense; Bad Science blog entries), and made a few changes to the article. As long as the tabloid and BS blog material stays out of the article, it's balanced and accurate. I think this is now a good and accurate hook; article is good and well sourced, everything else checks out. If someone more experienced in DYK can check whether a QPQ was warranted, I think this is good to go as long as the nominator does not restore the non-RS material. Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)