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.
Overall: When I have read the article for the first time, I was unable to stop swearing out of disbelief for a few minutes, having never encountered the topic. :) But that's OT. The article is great and has passed GA review today (congratulations). The sourcing is good, the article is as neutral as humanly possible. No plagiarism as I could see from the sources. The hooks are generally cited. ALT0 is the definition (which is shocking but interesting), ALT1 is a WP:SYNTH of the first sentence of the "Motivation" paragraph with the quote and is therefore not admissible as not being explicitly mentioned in-text, ALT2 is in the text (and is fairly interesting but I think there are better options, particularly as deliberate infection with HIV is criminal in most countries), while ALT3 not only has the definition but also describes an attitude towards "becoming poz". I personally would choose between ALT0 and ALT3, slightly preferring ALT3, because not only does it have the definition (itself very interesting and probably shocking for a lot of people), but also shows a peculiar attitude towards something what would normally be accepted with grief and sorrow. The only suggestion I have is to amend the proposal in ALT3 to the following: (ALT3a: ... that bugchasers — men who purposely have sex in order to be infected with HIV — often use metaphors of pregnancy and paternity to explain their infection?) - changes in italics. But I don't insist. You can choose ALT0 or ALT3 too, just write it below. TLDR: It is my pleasure to put a green tick on that proposal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this wonderful review, Szmenderowiecki! I love your modification of ALT3:
... that bugchasers—men who purposely have sex in order to be infected with HIV—often use metaphors of pregnancy and paternity to explain their infection?
OT: Glad you found the article neutral in tone. I almost worry that I am too sympathetic to bugchasers after doing all of this research - this article has just about every piece of academic literature that exists on the topic, and it's hard not to sympathize. Best wishes, Urve (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
When I have read the article for the first time, I was unable to stop swearing out of disbelief for a few minutes, having never encountered the topic. :) But that's OT. The article is great and has passed GA review today (congratulations). The sourcing is good, the article is as neutral as humanly possible. No plagiarism as I could see from the sources. The hooks are generally cited. ALT0 is the definition (which is shocking but interesting), ALT1 is a WP:SYNTH of the first sentence of the "Motivation" paragraph with the quote and is therefore not admissible as not being explicitly mentioned in-text, ALT2 is in the text (and is fairly interesting but I think there are better options, particularly as deliberate infection with HIV is criminal in most countries), while ALT3 not only has the definition but also describes an attitude towards "becoming poz". I personally would choose between ALT0 and ALT3, slightly preferring ALT3, because not only does it have the definition (itself very interesting and probably shocking for a lot of people), but also shows a peculiar attitude towards something what would normally be accepted with grief and sorrow. The only suggestion I have is to amend the proposal in ALT3 to the following: (ALT3a: ... that bugchasers — men who purposely have sex in order to be infected with HIV — often use metaphors of pregnancy and paternity to explain their infection?) - changes in italics. But I don't insist. You can choose ALT0 or ALT3 too, just write it below. TLDR: It is my pleasure to put a green tick on that proposal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)