Template:Did you know nominations/ZMapp

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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ZMapp

(

)

~~... that two Americans who had been infected with Ebola appeared to have had positive results after being administered ZMapp serum?~~

Created by Prokaryotes (talk), Johndheathcote (talk), Sammyj (talk) and Jytdog (talk). Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 11:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

May I propose ALT1?: ~~... that two Americans with Ebola virus improved after receiving ZMapp serum?~~ (In medical contexts, "positive results" makes me think of a test that indicated the presence of something, like a positive HIV test. Also, the body of the article doesn't reflect that both Americans received ZMapp. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 09:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric, i have made some changes to better reflect that both were treated. prokaryotes (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Complete review needed.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would wait for the results, before publishing this. --prokaryotes (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

prokaryotes, is the article ready now? It seems to have been greatly expanded, and would need a complete review in any event. As one of the major contributors to the article, I've been reluctant to call again for a new reviewer based on your last comment, but it's been almost three weeks; if I don't hear one way or another soon, we'll look for that new reviewer. Also, does the hook still hold, or should a new one be proposed? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Full review still needed; no response from prokaryotes. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

ALT3- ... that the experimental ebola drug candidate, ZMapp, is manufactured in the tobacco plant Nicotiana benthamiana (pictured) in the bioproduction process known as "pharming"?
ALT4- ... that the experimental ebola drug candidate ZMapp is manufactured in the tobacco plant Nicotiana benthamiana in the bioproduction process known as "pharming"?

:REVIEW COMPLETED - The following has been checked in this review by Esemono

QPQ by Prokaryotes

Article created by Prokaryotes on Aug 5, 2014 and has 8726 characters of readable prose

NPOV

ALT3 or ALT4 Hooks are interesting, short enough and sourced with Refs 4 and 15

Every paragraph sourced

GTG -- Esemono (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 22 September 2014‎ (UTC)

While the article has improved immeasurably from its original state, that original version created in a series of edits by Johndheathcote on August 5 contained a great deal of close paraphrasing, if not outright copyvio. Not all of it is gone: I removed one copyvio phrase from the article a short while ago, which contained useful information probably available elsewhere; having just found another, I'm putting this article on hold while someone deals with the problem. The current problem is the article's "The antibody work came out of research projects funded by the U.S. Army more than a decade ago", which is far to close to the source's "The antibody work came out of research projects funded more than a decade ago by the U.S. Army"—all the words are the same, with "by the U.S. army" moved slightly earlier. Oddly, in the Johndheathcote edits, the word "funded" was omitted, and there wasn't a source; whoever found the source and added it made things worse by adding "funded". BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like that sentence has been changed. How is it now? -- Esemono (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

* Don't know how this works, but I oppose this DYK. The Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is a serious problem with thousands dead and dying. Picking out from this disaster, some one-off results from a drug that may or may not turn out to be effective and safe, is to me both foolish and well, ugly. How about having a DYK on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa with "On 3 September, the International president of Médecins Sans Frontières spoke out concerning the lack of assistance from the United Nations member countries in the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, saying, "Six months into the worst Ebola epidemic in history, the world is losing the battle to contain it."? Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (striking ignorant comment, sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC))

if you do go forward with this, please do not call it a "serum" like it is some magical potion or like its components are undefined or unknown. Chemically it is a very well-defined drug candidate - a combination of 3 specific monoclonal antibodies. To beat a dead horse, it fits none of the definitions of Serum and calling it a "serum" would be an embarrassment. thanks Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

oy looks like you intend to go forward. instead of drug candidate which is redirected to the drug discovery article, i made the wikilink go to Biopharmaceutical... Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, we have to work with the new or newly expanded articles that are submitted. This nomination is about ZMapp. We don't do "support" and "oppose" here; the question is whether the nomination meets the DYK guidelines per WP:DYK. The epidemic article you're in favor of substituting is currently on the main page in the In The News section, and has appeared twice before there, in March and June. Once an article has appeared in In The News, it is no longer eligible for DYK, so not only can't it be used here, it can't be nominated on its own. I see that you've done a great deal of work on this article, and removed the text that was causing the issue I noted above. I have struck the two proposed hooks that contained "serum" (a word no longer in the article, though used in a couple of headlines from cited sources). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you for explaining i am quite ignorant of DYK. sorry for spouting. as you will! Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog fixed the copyright issues. Was that the last thing holding this nom back -- Esemono (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Esemono, given the extensive edits made to this article in the past several days, I think it's important that the article gets rechecked so that the new material is reviewed, including being given its own check for copyright issues. It should be part of the standard DYK checks. Also, make sure the recent edits left the hook info in the article and its sourcing intact as well; there were significant deletions made as well as additions. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed -- Esemono (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking into this. It starts with a bunch of copyedits, and one cn tag. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, please find me a reference for the term "pharming" that's available online. That Winston-Salem Journal article (hate that damn website with all their flash and video) doesn't contain the word, and I can't read the Forbes article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Done here. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are citations and other things that I am not perfectly happy with, but it's time to get this show on the road. I have spot-checked for plagiarism etc. and have not found anything. I prefer ALT 4, though if the promoter (and I know BlueMoonset is watching too) wants to stick the picture in, that's fine with me--I have not checked its license. Note also that I removed the two redundant commas from the hook. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)