Template:Did you know nominations/Genes, Brain and Behavior
- 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: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Genes, Brain and Behavior
[edit]... that the journal Genes, Brain, and Behavior works to raise standards for mouse mutant studies to reduce waste and ethical problems because of the unnecessary use of live animals for flawed studies?
Improved to Good Article status by Randykitty (talk). Self nominated at 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
- "at the forefront" needs to be quoted for sure, and probably attributed in the hook somehow, if it's used at all. Article says nothing this strong. EEng (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, that's not in the sources, so I have edited the hook to take out the "forefront". It also makes it a bit shorter.
- In the words of Renée Zellweger in Jerry Mcguire: 'You had me at "mouse mutant studies"'
- Unfortunately you lost me again with "...to reduce waste and yadda yadda [yawn]".
ALT1 ... that the journal Genes, Brain, and Behavior works to raise standards for mouse mutant studies?- If it could say "mutant mice" and drop the studies that would be the hookiest hook in my hooky hook book (Scientific accuracy? [blows raspberry]) Belle (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Before we get to Belle's perverted fantasies, I still have a worry now that I've look at the sources. The hook seems to be based on the journal's own published standards. I wonder if we shouldn't have a secondary source on this. After all, if this is really a significant initiative some other journal will have done an editorial or something commenting on it. EEng (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be a secondary source for this, rather than us simply parroting their advertising line. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are two references (one an editorial in Nature Neuroscience) in the sentence following the hook in the article (last sentence of the "reception" section). So the hook is indeed based on an editorial in the journal itself, but its notability follows from that editorial (and from the European Journal of Neuroscience also following these guidelines). BTW, I think that ALT1 is indeed an improvement, the hook that I proposed was just too long and complicated. I think that "studies" needs to remain, however, because the guidelines don't intend to improve the animals, but the way in which they are being used. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you link to, or quote, what these two other journals say about GBB's initiative? EEng (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here. If you are asking for the text of the Nature Neuroscience editorial, that is here. EJN simply included a reference to this guideline in their instructions for authors stating that authors should follow it. Let me know if I misunderstood and you'd like me to make changes to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- EEng, where does this stand? Does Randykitty need to make any changes? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here. If you are asking for the text of the Nature Neuroscience editorial, that is here. EJN simply included a reference to this guideline in their instructions for authors stating that authors should follow it. Let me know if I misunderstood and you'd like me to make changes to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you link to, or quote, what these two other journals say about GBB's initiative? EEng (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Before we get to Belle's perverted fantasies, I still have a worry now that I've look at the sources. The hook seems to be based on the journal's own published standards. I wonder if we shouldn't have a secondary source on this. After all, if this is really a significant initiative some other journal will have done an editorial or something commenting on it. EEng (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, fell off my radar. I think the following is OK -- somehow "trying" makes it sound less like some official effort. I've also cut the length a little, putting the animal ethics aspect more sharply, because I think that will interest a lot of readers. This isn't all that different from the other two hooks and I apologize for the delay. EEng (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the journal Genes, Brain, and Behavior is trying to raise standards for mouse mutant studies and reduce the unnecessary use of animals in flawed studies?
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a newly promoted GA and was submitted within the correct timeframe. It is long enough and I am happy with the citing of the hook. I detected no policy issues and do not believe the nominator needs to do a QPQ review. Good to go with ALT2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
