Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Harper
- 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 Allen3 talk 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Diane Harper
[edit]- ... that Diane Harper, who formerly worked on the clinical trials of the HPV vaccine, has since questioned the vaccine's safety and efficacy?
Created/expanded by Jinkinson (talk). Self nominated at 11:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC).
Observation: I think the heading "Opposition to Gardasil" should possibly be changed to "Opposition to HPV vaccine[s]" per the citations and per the fact she was involved in investigations for other HPV vaccines besides Gardasil. To focus on Gardasil alone seems possibly non-neutral POV regarding Merck. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Article is increasingly POV in favor of one brand of vaccine over another, which Harper's own WP:RS statements do not bear out. Needs a re-write (and in my opinion, a removal of all non-RS material) to prevent POV. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: I myself have removed the offending non-WP:RS material from the article (Sunday Express tabloid nonsense; Bad Science blog entries), and made a few changes to the article. As long as the tabloid and BS blog material stays out of the article, it's balanced and accurate. I think this is now a good and accurate hook; article is good and well sourced, everything else checks out. If someone more experienced in DYK can check whether a QPQ was warranted, I think this is good to go as long as the nominator does not restore the non-RS material. Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
