Template talk:Did you know nominations/Viriditoxin

The hook breached WP:MEDRS and had to be changed when it ran on the mainpage.[1] I'm sorry I missed Tamzin's ping, as I think the DYK should have been pulled; I wonder if it would have met the length requirements after the poorly sourced content was removed. Hyping a primary study with a quote isn't good, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Maybe I was too lenient here. I was left in an awkward case procedurally, with no other DYK/ERRORS admins around to clerk my proposed rewording, and after a few hours of waiting decided to action it myself, which I think was the right thing to do (and a few other admins endorsed it after the fact), but that meant no proper discussion of pulling versus rewording. The tightrope walk between "hard-ass" and "gunshy" is always tough, and it's possible I came down on the wrong side this time. Perhaps the best course forward here would be a thread at WT:DYK about MEDRS claims? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did your best; again, sorry I didn't notice. It is surprising to see such an obvious MEDRS issue getting through, but I try to avoid wt:dyk. Whatever you think :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I've found that the problem with "How did this get through?" threads at WT:DYK is that if you make it about the specific hook, it turns into a finger-pointing game, and if you avoid that and make it about the general case, someone pings everyone involved in the hook that prompted it and it still turns into a finger-pointing game. If there's any venue on Wikipedia that ought to have a blameless postmortem^{[bluelinkable!]} culture, it's WT:DYK, but that seems to not be the case. On the other hand, the current system of squabbling may still be net-positive, in that it scares at least some percentage of people onto the right path. So I don't know either. BorgQueen, any thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin yes, I do agree that the scare tactic works for some people. BorgQueen (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie. Tamzin it gets better (perhaps some attention is warranted):

article: high cytotoxic potential and rapid kinetics of caspase activation when reacting to Jurkat leukemia and especially Ramos lymphoma cells; solid tumor cells were affected to a much lesser extent.
source: high cytotoxic potential and rapid kinetics of caspase activation in Jurkat leukemia and Ramos lymphoma cells in contrast to solid tumor cells that were affected to a much lesser extent.
- Introduced here.

Now, the source is CC by 4, but that doesn't mean you can just copy-paste text in; there's no attribution for the directly lifted text. @Evrik, AirshipJungleman29, Mitch199811, and Michael D. Turnbull: there's a WP:MEDRS issue as well as a failure to understand copyright here. See here. It's important that copyright issues be stopped before they proceed beyond DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well at a minimum I've added the required template to the article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've found other instances now, so will leave a copyright message on editor's talk; I can't yet tell if a WP:CCI is needed, but it does not appear there was a copyvio check on this DYK. Again, it is very important that copyright issues be detected early at DYK, before a massive CCI becomes necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on earwig for copyvio issues. My spot check of the sources failed to catch the items noted above. --evrik ^(talk) 03:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik have you carefully read this page? There were mutliple problems with this DYK, and you should not have approved it. Do you understand WP:MEDRS? And do you understand that Earwig is insufficient for detecting a good deal of copyvio? Do you see the cut-and-paste samples above? When checking for copyvio, please keep an eye out for what, as in this case, is exceedingly technical language that might not be original words, and if you approve other DYKs, please go beyond Earwig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I've never been familiar with MEDRS as its never come up for me before, but I probably should have before promoting a medicine-related hook. Sorry all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 anytime you encounter a medical DYK, you can ping me, or drop a note at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed to the article after a comment at the Teahouse about the chemical structure. To my eyes, the interesting DYK-worthy fact was the atropisomerism and that's the hook I suggested, which would have appeared alongside my drawing of the chemical. I'm well aware of WP:MEDRS and that ALT1 fails that standard. However, I took my eye off the ball and didn't notice that ALT1 had been chosen in preference to my suggestion. Nor did I check the wording of other contributions to the article for potential copyvio. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested my own was because I thought yours went against the interesting part. I didn't understand what atropisomer meant and just assumed that non-chemist wouldn't understand it. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael D. Turnbull (I had noticed that from the DYK :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the unreliable information and copyvios in the article.

Looking back, I should've not expanded the article with too much info in the medical field due to my inexperience there; while I was aware of MEDRS, it never popped into my mind while creating the page. I also did the copyvios because I was unsure of how much the structure of a sentence mattered to the meaning. I was unprepared and desperate to fill in some redlinks. Even worse, while aware of my lack of understanding and the overall scope of the article, I nominated for DYK. Once again, I am very sorry for all the issues this has caused. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch199811 thanks for that; anytime you need help, you can pop a note to WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just started this conversation: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Medical_DYKs. --evrik ^(talk) 15:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]