Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Rolan
- 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 SL93 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paul Rolan
- ... that Paul Rolan has been Principal Investigator in over 700 clinical research studies of new medicines? Source: "He has been principal investigator in over 700 clinical pharmacology studies including 70 first-in-man studies." ([1] doi:10.2217/pmt.12.12)
- ALT1:... that Paul Rolan investigates the links between the immune system and chronic pain? Source: "A unique partnership between two of the University of Adelaide's senior medical researchers is edging closer to finding new treatments for chronic pain ... Professor Paul Rolan and Dr Mark Hutchinson have combined their different specialist skills to prove a link between pain and the brain's immune system" ([2])
- Reviewed: J. Russell Smith
Moved to mainspace by Gronk Oz (talk). Self-nominated at 07:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC).
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
-
- @SL93: I have added a couple of references, but I am the first to admit that they are not high quality. One is the subject's CV and the other is his University research profile. Unfortunately, none of these organizations publish lists of their Fellows, nor do they put out annual news releases or similar about new Fellows. Some did offer to confirm an individual's status on request, but I can't put that up as a reference. So we seem to be stuck - is the article adequate for DYK like this, or do you think it is better to remove that section until better sources can be found? Would you prefer if I tagged "better source needed"?Gronk Oz (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
