Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cielquiparle (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study

(
)
Example warning label
Example warning label

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC).

  • NOTE: I will do a full review when a QPQ is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Flibirigit! I wasn't aware of that RFC; I thought my nom would just be ignored until I'd done a QPQ. I've done one. I'll now get on with the article expansion, I've found a bunch more sources; I hope to be done within a day, or two if I do some more reviews. HLHJ (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Great, I will check back here in a couple of days. Flibirigit (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • According to WP:LOWERCASE, a good article title might be Northern Territories alcohol labels study, unless multiple reliable sources capitalize everything. Any thoughts on using the sentence case for the article's title? Flibirigit (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The most commen RS "title" seems to be "the Yukon study" which is a bit too vague, and inaccurate, as the control arm was not in the Yukon. The start-caps name seems to be what the researchers and lobbyists called it, including in research protocol descriptions; not exactly third-party independent sources, as they were written by researchers. No idea why journalists had an adversion to the term. I don't recall, nor with a quick skim can I find, another capitalization used in any source, and this capitalization is used in running text, as in "Northwestern University" and other multiword proper nouns. If a non-proper noun, the title would mean "study of alchohol labels in the Northern Territories", a broader scope, making it useful to havean indication that it is a proper noun. So on the whole I think this title best, faute de mieux. But I will keep my eye out for sources using other terms. HLHJ (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I notice there is a long list of external links. These might be better labelled as Wikipedia:Further reading, instead of Wikipedia:External links. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I think you're right. I will convert it. Apologies for being behind my timetable, I got IRL issues, then sidetracked. I'll ping you when I've got it in order, which should be soon; I plan to get a fair amount of stuff out of notes and into article within a day. HLHJ (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you for doing the QPQ. I will look for a comment here, then do the full review of this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
        • @HLHJ: any thoughts on when this is ready for a review? I'd like to go ahead by the weekend (November 26–27) if possible. Flibirigit (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I did in fact do extensive work on this over the last three days, but I realize I haven't posted any of it (I thought I'd posted at least a bit, but no, and you are right to nag). Getting MEDRS sourcing where appropriate, and finding yet more journal articles that are the product of it, and some more news sources, has lead to a fairly total rewrite. I should have written this complex article in draftspace, and maybe I should put my 2.0 verson there now. Thoughts? Finishing by this weekend should be doable. HLHJ (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
            • Okay, will return on the weekend. Flibirigit (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
              • I noticed many changes. Is the major update complete? Flibirigit (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
                •  Reviewing..., will post a more complete review by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created October 29 and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. No plagiarism issues were detected. The earwig tool highlighted multiple areas, but those were quotes, and proper nouns which are not violations. The sourcing is mostly good, however some quotations are missing a citation. I have tagged the relevant places. Also, there are three images in the "Results" section which have unclear sources. I have several questions about neutrality. I notice that "Tim Stockwell" is mentioned three times within the "Label design", but it is unclear what position he holds, and if anything he says is relevant or important enough to quote verbatim. If he's not notable, perhaps paraphrasing is best. In the section "Threats", the following statement seems to be promotional towards a person with questionable notability; "Robert Solomon, a Canadian law professor with 40 years' experience specializing in drug and alcohol policy". The section "Lobbyist identities" contains a lengthy quote from Luke Harford, which might be best paraphrased since he has questionable notability. The hooks proposed are all reasonably interesting. I question whether ALT0 is properly cited in the article. The claims of copyright infringement are cited to here, but it fails verification since the cited source says "fear of lawsuit by industry associations for defamation or copyright infringement.", which is not the same. I am unsure where ALT1 is cited in the article. I cannot find it in the main body, but two sentences in the introdcution could be used to cite the hook. If cited in the introduction, both sentences need a citation. Currently just the second sentence is cited. I cannot locate a citation in the article for ALT2, and do not see Streisand effect mentioned. All images used in the article are in the public domain. The image for this nomination is clear at a low resolution, and used in the article. The QPQ requirement is in progress. Overall the article is a decent contribution and I hope to see it on the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Flibirigit's comments. The descrption of Solomon is paraphrased from the NYT (he also co-wrote a paper. later I think), and a better phrasing would be good; Tim Stockwell is a full professor and a lead researcher on the study, and I hadn't realized I hadn't mentioned it. I'll fix. A lot of the cns are wher I've cited two successive sentences to a ref at the end of the second one; I can duplicate. I also find the proportion of quotes exvessive; ot reflects the news sources, which avoid saying much in their own voice, presumably for fear of lawsuits. The balance, flow, coherence, hooks, and third-party assessments of results need work. I have been unavoidably and unexpectedly unable to spend much time on-wiki; I apologise for not watching this page and will work on this as soon as I can. (Redacted) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I will look for the changes to appear on my watchlist. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy reminder posted on the nominator's talk page. Perhaps sending an e-mail will be the next step if no response. Flibirigit (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd say don't bother with an email, Flibirigit – if they don't respond to a talk page message in a timely manner, I'd say to just close it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
HLHJ (talk · contribs), your progress on the article is noted. Please comment here when you're ready to continue the review. Flibirigit (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
There are still three "citation needed" tags, and one "weasel words" tag. Flibirigit (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@HLHJ:, I have not noticed any progress on this article since December 31. This nomination is now more than two months old, and it is increasingly likely that others will want to reject the nomination if not completed soon. It's close to the finish line, I hope you find the time for three citation needed tags and the one weasel tag. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both (Narutolovehinata5 too) for the talk page pings, I'm afraid I've never gotten into the habit of using my watchlist. You're quite right, I got distracted into writing about weaving and spinning mechanisms (our textile content is surprisingly weak, systemic bias, I guess). The weasel-words tag is hard to succinctly clarify without misrepresenting the situation; I've been thinking that a wordy specific explaination in a footnote might be adequate to remove it. I'll make this the next thing I work on on Wikipedia, and finish it off before doing anything else (except replying to people). HLHJ (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
So I've now at least gotten rid of the templates. Not integrated all my notes yet, nor toned down the quotes, but some progress. HLHJ (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I will have a look at the changes later today, or by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I am working through this today. Apologies for the delay. Flibirigit (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@HLHJ:, in reviewing this today I notice that expansions to rectify sourcing issues have introduced other problems. I will continue to copyedit today, and tag some areas for clarification. Unfortunately none of my concerns on the hooks have been addressed. Please see the review above, as the hooks are the most important part of the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I've fixed the things you tagged, and made sure all non-attributed claims are third-party sourced (with exceptions for very unselfserving claims, like the "not statistically significant", which detail third-party review of the results ignored). I've also restructured a bit for clarity. I'll work on the rest, including the hooks. HLHJ (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, will look for the changes on my watchlist. Flibirigit (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @HLHJ and Flibirigit: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    No edits have been made to the article. It is unnecessary to ping me on this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    @HLHJ: pinging to bring your attention back to this; if the issues aren't resolved in a week, I think it's best that this nom be taken off of yours and everyone else's plate. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks to all for the reminders. I'd actually started working on this again just as Narutolovehinata5 posted; I've made some fairly extensive edits, and I think it's all cited. Neutrality remains difficult. Agreed-upon facts (were there threats?) are hard to come by, and there is a floating fear of lawsuits. A lot of the news coverage, though from reputable news agencies, does not even give the name of the reporter (bylines like "Staff"), and it relies heavily on quotes. I've tried to tone down the quoting in the article, but perhaps it still needs more toning down. Certainly the balance of reliable sources is not that both sides have equally valid points, so giving equal weight to the balance-of-evidence views and clearly self-interested views would be absurd, and non-factual claims should be juxtaposed with contrasting cited facts, but the tone should be neutral. I'll re-read it with fresh eyes and edit for clarity, tone, and less quotation.
On ALT1, I think it's now cited; on alt three, none of the sources actually use the term "Streisand effect"; perhaps it would be acceptable rephrased to avoid the term, but there may be better options. These two aren't well-phrased, but is the content reasonable?
  • ALT3 ... that a month after '"Alcohol can cause cancer" warning labels were attached to retail products in the Yukon, they were removed; the Yukon government feared that opposing alcohol-industry lobby groups might sue for copyright and trademark infringement? Source: "The government cited the fear of lawsuit by industry associations for defamation or copyright infringement. " --https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-alcohol-warning-labels-study-results-1.5556344
    Lobbying groups representing Canada’s breweries, wineries and distilleries, Mr. Streicker said, suggested that the labels might harm their brands and asked about the territory’s legal right to apply them. The industry also suggested that putting stickers on their bottles and cans infringed trademarks, he said." --https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/world/canada/yukon-liquor-alcohol-warnings.html
    “We had real conversations, for example, around legislative authority, label placement and trademark infringement, defamation. Those terms leave us thinking that litigation is a real risk.” https://web.archive.org/web/20230101015326/https://www.yukon-news.com/news/yukons-alcohol-label-study-back-on-but-without-a-cancer-warning/
  • ALT4 ... that months after the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study found that alcohol warning labels (AWLs) had an effect on consumer behaviour, some of the same lobbyists who successfully lobbied to curtail the study argued that there was no evidence that AWLs had any effect on behaviour? Source: Roumeliotis, Ioanna; Witmer, Brenda (8 January 2022). "Alcohol should have cancer warning labels, say doctors and researchers pushing to raise awareness of risk". CBC News. Spirits Canada added there are several policies in place to ensure consumers are aware of the risks of misusing alcohol, including government-controlled liquor boards, legal drinking age requirements, as well as restrictions on where alcohol can be sold and the setting of minimum prices. "Against this comprehensive background of control and management of alcohol, warning labels have not been shown to be useful in altering consumer behaviour or reducing the amount people drink."
    However, evidence of the effectiveness of alcohol labels is growing, including the results of the Yukon labelling study. It continues to be cited by researchers and governments around the world because, despite the alcohol industry's intervention, the study found information had an impact on people's behaviour.
Hong (May 8, 2020). "Warning labels led to reduced sales at Whitehorse liquor store, study finds - Yukon News". Yukon News. Simply-designed, eye-catching labels on alcohol containers in the Whitehorse liquor store helped reduce product sales while increasing consumer awareness on health risks associated with drinking as well as standard drink sizes.
That was one of the findings that came out of a study on the effectiveness of alcohol labels led by the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR) at the University of Victoria and Public Health Ontario, the results of which were published online earlier this week.
Giesbrecht, N; Reisdorfer, E; Rios, I (16 September 2022). "Alcohol Health Warning Labels: A Rapid Review with Action Recommendations". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19 (18): 11676. doi:10.3390/ijerph191811676. PMC 9517222. PMID 36141951. Zhao et al. [8] tracked total per capital retail alcohol sales in Whitehorse, the capital of Yukon territory. Sales decreased by 6.31% during the intervention, and decreased among labelled products by 6.59%, whereas sales of unlabeled products increased by 6.91.% — Preceding unsigned comment added by HLHJ (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I am aware of the above comment, and changes to the article. It will take a few days to digest, as I am busy this week. Pinging or reminding me is not necessary. Thank you for patience. Flibirigit (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    • HLHJ, I have struck both of your new hooks: ALT3 was 250 prose characters and ALT4 was 287, both far over the absolute maximum, which is 200. The original hook and ALT1 are 196 and 188 prose characters respectively, right at the limit. If anything, you might want to try to propose something shorter and snappier. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I added several citation needed tags as per WP:DYKCRIT. Will continue to review later today. Flibirigit (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
      • ...and I knew about the 200-char limitation and yet I didn't think to check. I should have left it until I was a bit more alert. Here are shorter versions ((same sources). Other suggestions from anyone are welcome; the article has no shortage of weirdnesses. HLHJ (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT3a ... that "Alcohol can cause cancer" product warning labels were removed, as the Yukon government feared alcohol-industry lobby groups might sue for copyright and trademark infringement?
  • ALT4a ... that alcohol lobbyists said there was no evidence alcohol labels have any effect on behaviour — after lobbying to curtail the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study, which had found some?
    •  Done I have reviewed the changes for policy, and found no concerns. Sourcing is now adequate, and no plagiarism was detected. The images added to the article are appropriately licensed on the Commons. There are perhaps too many trivial quotes used in the article, but the overall tone seems adequate and I am not aware of any DYK policy for the number of quotes. I will review the hooks later today. Sorry, I am busy and thanks for the patience. Flibirigit (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
      • I started to look at hooks tonight, but it appears that the article is not stable, and significant changes are being made. I find it extremely difficult to review an article that is constantly changing. I will wait until changes are done and the article is stable before continuing. Flibirigit (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
        • I have struck ALT0 and ALT2, since none of the concerns have been addressed from my review dated 9 December. I will instead look at the other three hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
        • I cannot find where ALT1 is cited anywhere in the article. I can locate the timeline of "four weeks" only in the introduction, but that sentence is not cited. ALT1 could be improved by shortening it to something like..."the labels were removed after only weeks". Not explaining why the labels were removed could be hookier. I cannot verify ALT3a. I find where the Yukon Liquor Corporation said labels were removed due to potential litigation, but not the goverment saying it. I also have no clue what ALT4a is trying to say, let alone where it is cited. Please clarify. Flibirigit (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Almost three months has passed since this nomination received a full review on 9 December. If issues are not resolved by 9 March, this should be marked for closure, unless adopted by someone making changes quicker. Flibirigit (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    ALTN1 ... that while the alcohol industry interfered with the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study, it still showed warning labels increased awareness and reduced drinking? The most compelling research to date comes from the Yukon experiment, which found that respondents increased their awareness of cancer as a risk factor when recalling the AWLs, reported drinking less after being exposed to the AWLs, and that alcohol sales declined during the intervention.
    ALTN2 ... that alcohol manufacturers claimed the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study violated their freedom of expression? With regard to the quasi-experiment in Yukon, they claimed...The study violated manufacturers’ constitutional rights to freedom of expression
    ALTN3 ... that the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study found that consumers liked pictograms? Participants also preferred larger labels that included standard drink (SD) information, national low-risk drinking guidelines presented as a chart with pictograms
    Do these work? CMD (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    The hooks look better at a glance. Will review in more detail tonight or tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    I have struck ALT1, ALT3a and ALT4a, since the nominator has not addressed any of the concerns. I will continue with reviewing ALTN1, ALTN2 and ALTN3, after I finish shovelling snow today. Flibirigit (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Working on this now. Flibirigit (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
     Done ALTN1 is interesting, properly mentioned and cited in the introduction, and verified by the source. Similar sourcing exists throught the results section of the article. Flibirigit (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
     Done ALTN2 is interesting, properly mentioned and cited in the introduction, and verified by the source. Flibirigit (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
     Done ALTN3 is interesting, properly mentioned and cited in the label design section, and verified by the source. Flibirigit (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    Nomination now adheres to DYK policies. All three of the hooks provided by @Chipmunkdavis: are approved as per my comments above, with thanks for the help. Flibirigit (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    Apologies for the slow reply, I've been offline. This may be moot, but for politeness's sake I'll make the requsted replies. On ALT3a, the Yukon Liquor Corporation is a government agency lead by a government minister; it is a branch of the government. I think it is okay to just say "the government", because the supporting source (cited for ALT3 and ALT3a) just says "the government". On ALT1 The "four weeks" is cited indirectly in the timeline (Nov 20-Dec 19), and I've now also cited the explicit statement in the lede. On ALT4a, my phrasing was obviously too jargony.
  • ALT4b ... that alcohol lobbyists claimed there was no evidence that alcohol warning labels are useful — after lobbying to curtail the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study, which had found that evidence?
    -- Roumeliotis, Ioanna; Witmer, Brenda (8 January 2022). "Alcohol should have cancer warning labels, say doctors and researchers pushing to raise awareness of risk". CBC News. Spirits Canada added there are several policies in place to ensure consumers are aware of the risks of misusing alcohol, including government-controlled liquor boards, legal drinking age requirements, as well as restrictions on where alcohol can be sold and the setting of minimum prices. "Against this comprehensive background of control and management of alcohol, warning labels have not been shown to be useful in altering consumer behaviour or reducing the amount people drink."
    However, evidence of the effectiveness of alcohol labels is growing, including the results of the Yukon labelling study. It continues to be cited by researchers and governments around the world because, despite the alcohol industry's intervention, the study found information had an impact on people's behaviour.     (mentioned in article under Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study#Reception)
Of the hooks CMD suggested (thank you, CMD!), I'd prefer ALTN2, which is bizzare and hooky. ALTN3 is the results of a preliminary study of relatively minor significance, and it isn't the most notable, original, or robust finding the study made. On ALTN1, I'm not sure if we need to clarify that the study, not the industry, showed the effects; it's unlikely enough, but I mistook the phrasing for a moment. HLHJ (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I am aware of the above comments and will follow up later today or tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the strike, now approving ALT1 in addition to the three hooks (ALTN1, ALTN2, ALTN3) approved above. I pass on ALT4b, since it is too wordy and repetitive to be interesting. I decline to reconsider ALT3a. I feel like the differences between "government" and "crown corporation" will be argued about at WP:ERRORS, and it's not worth discussing here since the hook is not a strong choice. I hope this nomination appears on the main page soon, as this discussion has gone on far too long. Best wishes everyone. Flibirigit (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Northern_Territories_Alcohol_Labels_Study&oldid=1143529875"