- 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 SL93 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nanoinformatics edit
- ... that the structure of nanoparticle cancer drugs affects their function in such complex ways that nanoinformatics approaches are useful?
- ALT1: ... that nanoinformatics is useful for developing nanoparticle cancer drugs because their structure-activity relationships are so complex?
Source: "Informatics methods are considered to be necessary tools for the advancement of cancer nanotechnology research... The complexity, richness, and direct therapeutic or diagnostic relevance of [nanoparticle drug] data leads to a combinatorial complexity that far exceeds genomic data." [1]
Created by Egon Willighagen (talk), John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk), ARECCfan (talk), and Room309 (talk). Nominated by ARECCfan (talk) at 19:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC).
@ARECCfan and John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. No QPQ is needed here. There are two problems, there is a "citation needed" tag which needs attention, and the hook facts need inline citations, - not at the end of the paragraph but at the end of the sentence in which each fact appears, a more specific requirement than demanded elsewhere in Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth and John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I fixed the two "citation needed" tags, and we use inline citations in most cases. When they are, the should be at the end for a reason, for example, if they apply to multiple claims on the same sentence. Please let me know which sentence you had in mind when bringing up that point. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth and Egon Willighagen: I already fixed the bit about the citation for the hook fact sentence. This is ready for a re-review. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this article now meets the DYK criteria, and either hook could be used. I'm giving it an AGF tick because both nanoparticles and nanoinformatics are way beyond my knowledge base. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
