Template:Did you know nominations/Arm swing in human locomotion

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arm swing in human locomotion

(

)

... that arm swing in human bipedal walking (animation pictured) improves energy efficiency by balancing the rotational motion produced during walking?

Created/expanded by Mturk7 (talk). Nominated by Carabinieri (talk) at 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not fully supported by inline sources. Raw link in citations to a YouTube video. These need to be fixed. There appear to be WP:NPOV issues with phrases like "A recent study concentrated on the energy consumption" and "A quantitative study" in the selection of sources. This needs to be resolved. The article also reads like WP:ESSAY with phrases like "Understanding the underlying neural mechanisms on organization". Also some mild concerns related to WP:MEDRS. Would like a second opinion. --

LauraHale (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't get how those phrases are POV or essay-ish. I also don't get what your WP:MEDRS concerns are. I'll look into the other points.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you're citing primary source research, rather than secondary sources that report on that research. Why did you chose the studies you referenced in the article? Are these seminal works in the field? If they ARE seminal works in the field, find secondary sources that mention these studies. Random inclusion of primary source research in medical related articles is not acceptable. They ALL need to go. Medical articles are held to a higher standard on English Wikipedia because of the problems of having poor information. Beyond that, it isn't fully sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment on this, most articles on scientific subjects rely on peer-reviewed scientific papers, backed up by review papers where they exist. I think that there is a misunderstanding of what is regarded as a primary source - and note that primary sources are anyway allowed to support factual statements, see for instance the discussion here [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS doesn't forbid primary sources, it merely encourages relying primarily on secondary sources. Could you briefly explain what your NPOV concerns are? I'll encourage the article's author to take care of the YouTube video as well as the unsourced statements.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in, on the medicine front. Most med articles are already held to a high standard and strictly peer-reviewed. Anne (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mturk7 has not responded to my message, asking if he/she could take care of these problems, so I'd like to withdraw this nomination.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)