- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
GRIM test edit
- ... that the GRIM test revealed multiple errors in research from the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab? Source: "Anaya, along with Brown and Tim van der Zee, a graduate student at Leiden University, also in the Netherlands, wrote a paper pointing out the 150 or so GRIM inconsistencies in those four Italian-restaurant papers that Wansink co-authored." (link)
- ALT1:... that a GRIM test on a sample of published psychology articles revealed that over half of them contained at least one mathematically impossible result? Source: "Of the articles that we could test with the GRIM technique (N = 71), around half (N = 36) appeared to contain at least one inconsistent mean, and more than 20% (N = 16) contained multiple such inconsistencies." (link)
Created by Smurrayinchester (talk). Self-nominated at 14:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, and adequately sourced. QPQ done. Earwig found no copyvio. However, I have serious concerns about the main hook (alleging scientific misconduct at a specific university lab, without an investigation having confirmed this). Given its appearance in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Buzzfeed, and Forbes (see [1]) and the building sequence of associated retractions [2] I think it's well-documented enough to stay in the article, but that's different from putting it on our front page. ALT1 is much more suitable. So, good to go with ALT1 but not with the main hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
