Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Harper"
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
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
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).
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)
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)
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)