Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China
- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Violence against doctors in China edit
- ... that violence against doctors in China has been described as a "crisis", with more than 17,000 incidents reported in 2010?
Created/expanded by LT910001 (talk). Self nominated at 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC).
- I am a new contributor to DYK and this looks very confusing, so I'd like to contribute this DYK, but am a little unsure about everything (so there might be some formatting errors). LT910001 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Hi You'll need 1500 characters of pure prose. This looks a bit light. Victuallers (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Per the list provided by User:Allen3 here, I stopped by to check for compliance with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for medical text; I will leave source verification, copyvio checking, etc to other DYK reviewers. The article did not have PubMed identifiers (PMIDs), so as I checked the sources, I added them. Several of the sources used are editorials or letters/comments in journals. In this case, we at minimum should have in-text attribution (because although journal-published, these letters are opinion rather than peer-reviewed fact), and considering that sourcing, it might be good to have attribution on most of the claims made in the article (that is, say who is making each of these claims, as you see The Economist article does). The Economist is used to cite the hook, which doesn't bother me as this isn't so much a health-related claim as a crime statistic. In other words, although I don't have MEDRS concerns, I do have concerns that the article is sourced to some editorials and comments (which I can't access to better opine on), but will leave the rest of this to regular DYK reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. I take it although you have concerns, you support the DYK nomination? LT910001 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't support or not-- I only came by to check for MEDRS issues. A regular DYK reviewer, who understands the rest of the criteria, makes that decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I am nervous about putting an article like this on the Main Page with this amount of content in it. It's just my opinion, but I feel that an article that deals with a problem and/or a primarily negative social phenomenon should have more detail, especially if the article is making such claims as "it is a crisis". See for example Violence against Indians in Australia controversy for an article about a similar topic with similar scope. It's not a requirement of course that articles be that long and I think the article does pass WP:N easily, but I don't think it would be a good idea to link something like that on the main page with so little information. Again though, this is just my opinion and if someone else disagrees, I'm fine with that. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a really interesting topic that would make an excellent DYK item, but I share Thingg's concern that the article is not yet ready for main-page display. Particular care is needed in presenting negative social phenomena like this one. This article is a collection of vague generalizations that lack context. A particular concern is the presentation of observations/opinions without identifying the sources of the statements. The sources are solid, so there's a good basis for improving the article. (I also found this source.) I edited the lead section to eliminate the dictionary-definition format ("Violence against doctors in China refers to acts of violence...") and to include indications of where the statistics and the "crisis" label came from. More improvements could be made to the rest of the article.
- The hook fact is supported by sources, but it isn't quite correct -- it's more than 17,000 incidents, not "up to 17,000." Also, the statement about "crisis" probably shouldn't be made without some sort of context.
- A particular concern with the article is the subsection about Yi Nao. As currently written, it's not obvious why that short section is included in the article, and that section and the linked article are both flawed by their focus om presenting a dictionary definition rather than telling about a topic. I don't have full-text access to the BMJ source where this topic is discussed and I can't read the Chinese sources cited, but I did find other English-language content: [1], [2], [3]. From what I've read about the topic, I think that some discussion of Yi Nao can and should be folded into the main body of the article, where it discusses the phenomena that lead to attacks on doctors. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Well, I've made the merge. I tried to use reputable sources for this article. I'd be happy to delist this nomination if it doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. --LT910001 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was hoping that you would undertake a more thorough revision of the article to address the concerns that had been identified here -- these are improvements that are needed regardless of whether the article is used in DYK. However, because I see that your main interest is in medical topics (you don't often deal with societal issues), I decided to tackle some of the needed revisions. I haven't done everything that I think might be worth doing, but I've made some fairly extensive revisions. Also, I've edited the proposed hook to resolve the accuracy concern about the number of incidents annually. Someone else will need to review this now, in view of my involvement with the article. --Orlady (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Well, I've made the merge. I tried to use reputable sources for this article. I'd be happy to delist this nomination if it doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. --LT910001 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I've read through this discussion and reviewed the article and its sources, and IMO it is a valid "start" article. The subject is a well-founded phenomenon sourced in such papers as The Lancet and The Wall Street Journal, and Orlady has done a fine job strengthening the presentation (I added Orlady's name to the DYK page credits). I also added a few more sources, as the subject has garnered increased coverage with a spate of violent incidents in October and November 2013. The article is new enough, long enough, well sourced, and no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref is verified and cited inline. No QPQ necessary for first-time nominator. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
