Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/BGR-34

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

BGR-34

[edit]
(
)
  • ...that BGR-34 has been described as both a "breakthrough-drug" and as a "populistic and market driven propaganda"? Source: "Ayurvedic drugs in case: Claims, evidence, regulations and ethics". Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine. 7 (3): 135–137. 2016-07-01. doi:10.1016/j.jaim.2016.08.005. ISSN 0975-9476.
  • Reviewed: Rejected 2, worked on 1 and accepted 1. Can't be bothered to look for diffs.
  • Comment:

Created by Winged Blades of Godric (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC).

  • It'd be nice if the direct quotations used here were in the article. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright / close paraphrasing issues. I don't like the proposed hook, the second half of which seems ungrammatical (you can't really describe a drug as "a propoganda"). Could you suggest something else? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Cwmhiraeth, thanks:-) Will think of one, shortly. ∯WBGconverse 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you advice some hook? Thought a lot but umm.......∯WBGconverse 18:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering the fringiness of the article subject, perhaps a hook regarding its negative reception could work? Also the article currently has a "clarification needed" tag that needs to be addressed. I'll also leave a message at WP:FTN on whether or not the article is fine as it is or if it needs to be edited some more; we wouldn't want pseudoscience promotion on the front page, would we? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is probably entirely negative in tone. Not sure about how it can seem promotional to any reader. If anything, it debunks these pseudoscience BS.
Posted over FTN:-)
And, I too feel that the hook ought contrast it's initial hype with the blatantly negative reception. But, it's only my 3rd/4th DYK and I am a bit perplexed as to finding a good hook. I will appreciate any help.∯WBGconverse 17:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This quackery isn't seriously going to find its way onto the front page is it? Come on wikipedians, we are meant to aspire to be a serious & reputable publication. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Noted, though I disagree. A few days back we were having a quackery BLP, blatantly positive in tone (which shall be avoided at cost). If homeopathy does come to meet GA, I don't see why some appropriate hook can't feature it on main page. Anyways, pulling. ∯WBGconverse 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
So you are withdrawing this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup. Some things are not meant for DYK:-) ∯WBGconverse 13:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/BGR-34&oldid=882992158"