Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 140

Archive 135

←

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

→

Archive 145

Members

Since there is no longer a members list, rather something generated by a bot from a template, how can we know who they are so we can welcome new members? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The members list is split between Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members/Inactive. The bot moves members' names back and forth between the two lists, depending upon whether the editor has been on wiki recently. Previously, we maintained the list by hand, only in one direction (removal of inactive editors), and it happened about once every two years, because nobody enjoyed doing it. If you click the blue "Join WikiProject" button on the front page, the bot will leave a message on your talk page every time someone new joins.

If you want to know who has been editing WPMED-related pages, then see Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Medicine. The first section is people who comment on this page, and the second section is people who edit WPMED-tagged articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean unless I join I don’t get to welcome new members? That is my interest ... besides that our page now obscures so much basic info like this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's disappointing to find I'm no longer a member. I joined in 2009 and I'm still on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. :( --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the bot developer (Harej) has not been active on Wikipedia for a year or so (although he/they have been active on Wikidata-related work, judging from his/their user page). Requests for assistance on his Talk page—regarding problems with the bot that updates membership lists for WikiProjects—have gone unanswered for about 8 months. See Active WikiProject editors and thereafter on the developer's Talk page.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we go back to a normal membership page? I don’t like being bot controlled, and do not use userpage templates. And we should have an active means of tracking and welcoming new members. And I hate not seeng Encephalon in the membership list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Keeping the normal membership pages up-to-date is impossible, but frankly I don't think it much matters. I've tried to ring Harej on his talk page a couple times over the last year with no luck. Does anyone have a connection with Harej? Alternatively we could ask for a new bot operator. I'm not sure what the nature of Reports bot's problem is, but perhaps someone would be up to the task of making a new one/fixing the old one? Ajpolino (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the active editors list includes the sign-up dates. Would searching for "August 2020" (three editors so far) be sufficient for finding new editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a workaround, but makes for lots of unnecessary work, compared to a straight diff. Along with the extreme amount of space it is taking at WP:MED, I find the whole thing awkward. Anyway, Ajpolino, that's for you for the newsletter. Thanks, WAID! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Genopole for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genopole is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genopole until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:81BB:52E0:71A:AA4A (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is a preprint a reliable source?

Can someone here tell me if a preprint is considered a reliable source? I'm asking about the following citation in the article COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I searched the talk archive and WP:MEDRS and didn't find an explicit answer. Thank you in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Note that the medRxiv disclaimer about a preprint not having peer-review (click "what does this mean?") states "articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." That's enough to conclude the article in question is preliminary until the final peer-reviewed article is published. Further, despite reporting assessment of some 50 studies on COVID-19 infection fatality rate, the article produces a rather useless conclusion: Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Zefr (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is "no".

The long answer is that all sources, without exception, are reliable for something (e.g., to verify their own existence or contents). On Wikipedia, we normally treat a pre-print as being equivalent to a self-published source. If you'd take this source if it had appeared in the author's blog, then it's reliable in the form of a pre-print. Of course, per MEDRS, you shouldn't normally cite Wikipedia:Biomedical information to anyone's blog.

In the specific context, I understand that the serology-prevalence folks are having a hard time differentiating between antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and past exposure to other antigens, including the common cold or a pneumonia vaccine. I might therefore be inclined to write those sentences carefully, so that "some people have antibodies" doesn't turn into "every person with antibodies has already survived COVID-19". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

A reliable source for medical purposes should at a minimum come from either a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (preferably Medline-indexed), or from a recognised international or national health organisation. The main page for https://www.medrxiv.org/ carries the warning:

Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

They are not suitable even for use in the press, and are a long way from meeting our standards for reliable sources for medical content. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

An exception: We often hyperlink the title of articles to a preprint or author's copy to facilitate free access to scientific studies, with an article's doi hyperlinked to the publisher's website, in part to establish that the article has been peer-reviewed and published in a reliable source. (There was discussion recently of such hyperlinks, although not necessarily in the context of a reliable source concern.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. And another wiggle; many reputable journals publish articles online before print, but after acceptance. While they sometimes have banners saying they aren't the version of record and may be changed, these clearly do meet RS. The third-party review, and not the actual impression onto paper, is what qualifies them. Articles which are never printed on paper might still be RS. HLHJ (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

HPG80 / Progastrin

The new article HPG80 is about the extracellular and oncogenic version of progastrin. Problem is, there seems to be a total of two papers in existence that even use the term [1]. I don't know the area and can't decide whether this should be moved to extracellular progastrin or similar, or merged to progastrin. Could project members take a look? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

its been tagged[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Parkinson's FAR

I have nominated Parkinson's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Alzheimer's notified: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis notified: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Other FA reviews needed

Perhaps we could take these on, one per month, and bring them back to Featured standard? Or touch bases with the original authors who are still active to ask them to review and update as needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Page views for Dengue fever spiked at the start of the month. I'll bet that was when there were some COVID-19 stories in the media about some people possibly getting a second round of coronavirus infection, with worse symptoms. Dengue was a standard comparison for that feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Pageviews 90 days 14 March – 12 Jun	FA status	Article	Notes
95,628	Needs review	Acute myeloid leukemia	User:MastCell 2006 promotion
316,865	Out of compliance	Alzheimer's disease	2008 promotion, both nominators long departed
711,779	Defeatured	Asperger syndrome	Defeatured April 2020, Eubulides long gone
387,287	Out of compliance	Autism	2007 promotion, Eubulides long gone,
91,632	2020 review	Chagas disease	Restored at FAR May 2020 by Spicy and Ajpolino
62,337	Needs review	Cholangiocarcinoma	User:MastCell 2007 promotion
247,344	Needs review	Coeliac disease	2007 promotion User:Jfdwolff
207,235	2020 promotion	Dementia with Lewy bodies	Featured May 2020, SandyGeorgia, Colin
359,720	Out of compliance	Dengue fever	2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff, Doc James
2,282	Needs review	Diffuse panbronchiolitis	2011 promotion nominator long gone
35,986	Needs checking	Endometrial cancer	2014 promotion User:Keilana
27,411	Needs review	Hepatorenal syndrome	2009 promotion User:Samir
327,736	Defeatured	Huntington's disease	Defeatured July 2020, 2009 promotion nominator long gone
1,198,247	Needs review	Influenza	2006 promotion Tim Vickers
124,610	Needs review	Lung cancer	2007 promotion User:Axl
246,437	Needs checking	Major depressive disorder	2008 promotion check with User:Casliber
3,992	Needs review	Management of multiple sclerosis	2007 promotion main contributor long gone
287,700	Needs review	Meningitis	2009 promotion User:Jfdwolff
435,231	Out of compliance	Multiple sclerosis	2005 promotion, main contributor long gone User:Wouterstomp might help
16,180	Needs review	Osteochondritis dissecans	2009 promotion nominator long gone
60,340	Needs checking	Oxygen toxicity	2009 promotion, check with User:RexxS
161,500	Needs checking	Pancreatic cancer	2015 promotion, check with User:Johnbod
427,504	Out of compliance	Parkinson's disease	2011 promotion nominator long gone
613,002	Needs review	Polio	2007 promotion nominator long gone
20,577	Needs review	Pulmonary contusion	2008 promotion User:Delldot
169,934	Needs checking	Rhabdomyolysis	2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff
466,012	2020 Overhaul	Schizophrenia	2020 Overhaul Casliber
78,035	Needs checking	Subarachnoid hemorrhage	2008 promotion, User:Jfdwolff
7,433	Needs checking	Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis	2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff
335,270	2020 Overhaul	Tourette syndrome	Overhauled for March 2020 mainpage appearance, SandyGeorgia, Colin
293,955	Needs review per lead citation	Amphetamine	2015 promotion User:Seppi333
254,903	Needs checking	Bupropion	2013 FAR
118,211	2015 FAR	Cerebellum	2015 FAR
152,453	Needs review	Genetics	2008 promotion User:Mad Price Ball
166,062	Needs review	Helicobacter pylori	2008 FAR. Lead is a mess, needs overall review
144,345	Needs review	Hippocampus	2009 promotion, nominator gone
296,913	Needs review	Immune system	2007 promotion nominator gone
453,695	2020 Overhaul	Introduction to viruses	Overhauled in March 2020 for mainpage appearance, Graham Beards
346,263	Maintained by Colin	Ketogenic diet	2009 promotion, maintained by Colin
39,422	Needs review	Linezolid	User:Fvasconcellos 2009 promotion
1,525	Needs review	Major urinary proteins	2010 promotion nominator gone
186,142	Needs checking	Menstrual cycle	2008 FAR
158,247	Needs review	Metabolism	2007 promotion Tim Vickers
115,648	Maintained by Graham Beards	Rotavirus	Maintained by Graham Beards
229,335	Maintained by Graham Beards	Social history of viruses	Maintained by Graham Beards
2,261,992	Maintained by Graham Beards	Virus	Maintained by Graham Beards
39,139	Needs review	Water fluoridation	2009 promotion, Eubulides long gone

Well that's disappointing to see, though not surprising. I'd be happy to participate in a monthly focused update. Also happy to drive updates on any of the microbe-related articles (or even, painful as it might be, Tim's Metabolism article). Thanks for doing all the research here! Ajpolino (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino and everyone, does it make sense to anyone that Tim Vickers’ FA metabolism is not tagged by WPMED ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose no stranger than his 2007 promotion Immune system not being tagged by WPMED... Ajpolino (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I know that Tim was fond of his molecular biology WP, but shouldn't we tag these articles? Does anyone know of any reason we haven't? By the way, Ajpolino, the FA stats are based on the categories at WP:FA, where you will see most of Tim's articles under Wikipedia:Featured articles#Biology rather than Wikipedia:Featured articles#Health and medicine. Genetics is another one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: does this division still make sense for us? Should any of those Biology FAs be moved to Health and medicine at WP:FA? In the past, we respected the preference of the main author, and Tim preferred biology ... perhaps same for yours? What about genetics, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, No, biology is not a sub-speciality of medicine. Immune system is a biology subject, whereas Immunodeficiency is a medical topic. Again Metabolism is biology and Inborn errors of metabolism is medicine. Only a tiny few bacterial species cause diseases in humans so Bacteria is definitely biology - same with viruses to be honest. Genetics is biology period. Of "my" four virus articles only two, Rotavirus and Social history of viruses can fully justify the WPMED tag even though I always regarded them as biology (virology) articles first and foremost. Graham Beards (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham; you're the master! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

2007-2011 was a golden age. Is this decline reflected in other Wikiprojects? Was that a Wikipedia peak or a WP:MED peak? -- Colin°^Talk 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Other content areas are at User:SandyGeorgia/FA growth, which can be sorted by growth over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

From Sandy's numbers it looks like the decline is reflected in many topic areas, but not all. In the 8 years from Dec. 2011 to Jan. 2020, there was a net gain of 9 health FAs. Of the 30 categories 11 had the same or less growth. Over the same 8 years, 14 categories grew by more than 50 FAs; 9 grew by 96+, more than one per month. If we consider the 2011 size of the category and look at percent growth, "Health" still lags behind. Health grew by 21%, better than just 6 other categories. The median category grew by 51% over that time. Ajpolino (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Main thing was complete dropoff in medical FAs after 2015 ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together, SandyGeorgia! I'll be happy to update endometrial cancer and would be available to help with other topics that need an adopter. Keilana (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with amphetamine? In any event, if either that article or beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid have issues that need to be addressed in the future, just ping me. I'll probably have more time for WP in 8-12 months from now. Please ping me in a reply. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Timing

Should we update MEDMOS first, and review the existing FAs afterwards? Or the other way around? Changing "the rules" in the middle of a review may be irritating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing sorry, I somehow missed this message. Which part of MEDMOS are you thinking of in particular? The parts of MEDMOS that are out of sync with or redundant to Wikipedia-wide guidelines were not enforceable at FAC anyway because ... if a local guideline is out of sync with Wikipedia-wide policies, the broader guideline prevails at FAC. That was more of a matter of alienating FA writers by downgrading leads, but that could have been challenged and rejected via FAR had any of us been of that persuasion.

Perhaps you are suggesting that we should seek broader consensus from participants that FA Leads do not have to be written in a particular order before we come up with a plan of attack for the amount of work to be done? There is so much work to be done on all of our FAs, that the order of content in the lead is minor in comparison ... I don't think that is the main stumbling block, which is instead that FAs simply ceased to be maintained five years ago.

I am more concerned that we decide early on which articles are still in good shape, which have active nominators willing to tune them up, whether we can pull in some of our semi-active FA writers (Jfdwolff etc), and that we decide which very high pageview FAs we might tackle together. Sorting the chart above by pageviews reveals my concern. I am particularly concerned about Polio and Influenza; they are extremely high pageview, and we should try to salvage them IMO, and I believe we have the combined competence still on board at WPMED. Since we seem to have no neurologists on board, I think the chances we can together restore Multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's disease are minimal, unless someone has a particular interest in one of them. I wonder if there is interest in restoring Autism, which is as severely damaged as Asperger's was. The loss of Asperger's (and possibly Autism) are a SHAME because of the very high pageviews. I am fairly certain that Dengue fever is within our capability as a group. So at this stage I am interested in exploring a plan of attack ... seeing who might be interested in working on what, and whether we should plan to tackle them as a group. The encouraging news is that both Spicy and Ajpolino have developed an understanding of how to bring/keep articles at standard, so if the interest has returned, I hold out hope that we can restore some of these, but am unsure we have the competence to restore all of them (neurology). @PainProf:???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what changes to MEDMOS might affect FA. For the leads, I expect good writing to prevail over rule-following at FAC. The discussions about including information about different populations (women, children, pregnancy, etc.) and more non-medical information (patient reaction to diagnosis, how schools support autistic students, employment effects, etc.) could affect article content more significantly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, WhatamIdoing, I understand better your concern now. But the answer is the same. MEDMOS is a guideline, and whether or not something is included on the "suggested order of sections" list is not really the final say on whether an article is comprehensive for FA purposes (although the suggested list is helpful as a checklist). Editor consensus about due weight in sources, for example, is more relevant than a WikiProject list, although having something left out that is on the suggested list would certainly raise eyebrows. I do agree that we should (rather soon) get the WikiProject pages back in order, and get consensus on how to handle the (mis) use of guideline suggestions, but I don't think that should halt simultaneous improvement of FAs. If something is given sufficient weight in the highest quality recent sources required at WIAFA-- and editors mention at FAC or FAR that it is left out-- that is relevant and a matter of editor consensus for WIAFA, no matter what the project pages have or don't have. We don't have to list every single possibility at MEDMOS for it to be worthy of inclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease is of interest to me SandyGeorgia so I would like to try help with that. PainProf (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@PainProf: that is very good news, but Parkinson's is already at FAR, so we will have to see if we can a) assemble a team, and b) move quickly enough to save the star at WP:FAR, or c) let it be defeatured and then go ahead and get it re-featured via a new WP:FAC. If we can pull together enough people to salvage it at FAR, time constraints at FAR are considerably relaxed as long as we are progressing in the right direction. Technically, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parkinson's disease/archive1 has about two weeks left, but if we say we are willing to work on it, we can get that extended for a very long time. But the amount of work needed is considerable, so we need to know we can really count on people to dig in. I have a lot of knowledge related to dementia with Lewy bodies, but I do not know the literature well enough to take this on alone, and the amount of work needed is daunting because the article has been neglected for almost a decade. I'd want to know we have ample help. It is really detrimental to lose the star; see WP:OWN#Feautred articles-- once the star is gone, articles tend to go all to heck even faster than usual. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Parkinson's again

Hey, all (or anyone interested) ... PainProf has begun work there, so I will also engage, but I think it's too much work for two of us to do alone. Are others interested? If so, let's please convene at Talk:Parkinson's disease; the FAR (at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parkinson's disease/archive1) gives an idea of the work needed, and there are numerous recent reviews mentioned on talk that haven't been accounted for or incorporated. Perhaps we can coordinate our "who is doing what" work; I am best for citation and MOS cleanup and overall watching out for things that are not FA-compliant. Others can help by updating old citations, reading the new reviews and using them to either update or incorporate new information, or just do all sorts of general stuff, like prose cleanup, suggestions on talk for work needed, etc.

One note: for decades, we at WPMED have ignored a common requirement for verifiability with respect to page numbers (or section headings or chapters at least) being needed on lengthy sources like books, PDFs, or very long journal articles; see dementia with Lewy bodies#References, complete blood count#References and Buruli ulcer#references. I am not sure why we thought we didn't have to meet WP:V just the way every other content area did, but that was our standard. As you are adding new information, or verifying old information, please add a page number or section heading from the source. When we are done, I will convert the entire article, if the star is saved (not gonna do the work if we don't save the star, as it will take days). You can do that by adding an inline hidden comment, or by (temporarily) using the Template:Rp as Spicy had done in the older versions of complete blood count. That will leave us temporarily with inconsistent citations, which is a breach of WP:WIAFA, but the idea is that I will fix them all before the FAR closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT in drug articles

If you read more than a few of our drug articles, you tend to find the same two factoids appearing in the lead, and only in the lead, citing primary sources. As such, their sources don't themselves indicate that they have WP:WEIGHT to be mentioned in the article, never mind have prominence in the lead:

• It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.
• In 2017, it was the 221st most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than two million prescriptions.

References

But WP:WEIGHT requires us to examine what the body of secondary literature considers important and to bear in that mind wrt the proportion and prominence given to a fact or claim. Does the secondary literature generally mention both these facts? And if so, do they give it such importance that they can't wait to mention it within the body text rather than the first few paragraphs or even page one?

The presence of a drug on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines is clearly important on that list article, but is the inverse true for all the hundreds of drugs on the list? I'm aware that the text in many articles used to boldly claim ", the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system", which is being removed already from many. It was an over-simplification of the properties of the list, which is complicated by being split into core and complementary lists, a factor that none of our article mention. This seems more a feature of building and supplying a healthcare system with a range of medicines to treat common conditions, than it does a feature of the drug itself. It doesn't confer magical properties upon the drug (for example, there is no obligation on manufacturers to make generic forms widely and cheaply available, and in reality many drugs on the list are not widely and cheaply available). So I wonder if a drug's presence on the list matters to WHO, healthcare charities and some government healthcare systems, but not so much otherwise. What does the body of secondary literature say when discussing each drug? Does this get a mention?

Similarly, we have the factoids about the sales rank in the US in 2017 and often a count of prescriptions in the US. What our text neglects to mention is that these figures are an estimate based on an annual survey: they aren't actual sales figures or counts of prescriptions, but figures extrapolated from polling. Again, what does the body of secondary literature say when discussing each drug? Does this get a mention? Thoughts? -- Colin°^Talk 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I can't immediately think of a factoid so important to the identity of many topics that it should be indiscriminately added to the lead of each topic's article. Sales rank in the US in 2017 seems oddly specific for most drugs. I don't know much about the WHO list, but if it's mentioned prominently in reviews about the drug, I'm happy to see it mentioned prominently in our articles. If not, perhaps it merits mention in a section on "Uses" or a paragraph on how widely used/approved the drug is. If it's not mentioned anywhere, then perhaps it need not be noted in our articles. I've got rifampicin and clarithromycin on my to-do list now, so I'll take a look at those in the next week or two to see if sources mention the WHO list. Ajpolino (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As part of the group removing some of the original research about costs from the leads of drug articles, I've noticed some of this. I find the "safest and most effective" description particularly irritating on chemo drugs.

I think it's appropriate for articles to mention that a drug/drug class is on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. This is the kind of binary factoid that could be put in the infobox.

The fact that a drug is commonly prescribed (whether in the US or elsewhere) is also appropriate encyclopedic content. It's business information, so it doesn't really need a MEDRS source. But I agree that it was the 221st most common prescription in 2017 is oddly specific. I could imagine "commonly prescribed drug" in the lead and something more specific (but maybe not that specific) lower in the article, possibly in a paragraph that also says what the annual revenue for the manufacturer was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WHO list of essential medicines (and how it's placed on that list) is important enough for the lede and/or infobox. I think that specific countries/lists of "most commonly" are inappropriate for the lede/infobox. I think that both are important to expand upon in the article itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The question I'm asking, though, isn't whether we, as Wikipedians, want to include this factoid or that factoid, or whether we think it important (or is actually just in 2km radius of something we think is important). But what do reliable secondary sources say when they discuss a drug in detail. I'd be interested in sources that include this (sort of) information. I know shifting it to the info box is a kind of compromise dumping ground. I could be persuaded about the WHO essential medicine (not just binary, but core or complementary) being in the info boxes, if folk can actually find secondary sources on this specific drug or that specific drug which care to also mention it. I'd be extremely surprised if anyone was doing it wrt the 221st most commonly sold in 2017 factoid. That seems to me just "I found this resource full of facts and want to use it" rather than article building. It isn't at all the same as an expert source saying "This is the most commonly prescribed antibiotic in the US", but is low level primary data. I'd much rather say that sort of fact, than dump raw data into an article and expect a reader to interpret it. I appreciate this is business info, but WEIGHT still applies. -- Colin°^Talk 21:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WHO EM status is discussed in detail by the WHO, and in review papers leading to that status, and also in passing in many sources, so mentioning that status in passing (whether in the lead, the infobox, and/or the body of the article) is reasonable DUE in all cases.

Every modern drug is (ideally) a business product (else it's not available), and it is DUE to mention, for all business products, something about its sales. What exactly should be mentioned about the product as a thing that gets sold (e.g., gross revenue, net profits, number of units, location of sales, market segments...) depends upon what the sources say, but "one of the 100 most commonly prescribed drugs in the US, according to a 2017 survey" is not an inherently unreasonable thing to include (in the body of the article, along with other business-related information).

Neither WHO EM status nor sales information is Wikipedia:Biomedical information, so MEDRS doesn't apply. This requires the same sort of sources that editors would ideally use the level of sourcing that would be typical for financial information in FAs such as Macintosh Classic and Octopus card. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WAID, we all agree sales stats are just business data. The question about what facts to include isn't solely about "Can I find a reliable source" or "Is this source reliable" or "Does MEDRS apply" but more "What information do I readers benefit from seeing, how prominent should that information be, and how do I present it" and part of that falls into the policy that we judge the importance of information by examining the secondary literature.

We have fallen into the trap before of saying that a topic domain is important, therefore any old data on the internet about that topic domain can be included. If you look at About DrugStats and the chart at the bottom, you see a curved plot. In other words, the sales figures from #1 to #300 do not fall linearly but closer to exponentially. The 104 million outpatient prescriptions for #1 Lisinopril drops to 50 million for #10 Albuterol and 10 million for #80 Buspirone and 2 million for #242 penicillin V. The top 5 account for 16% of all outpatient prescriptions, top 10 for 25%, top 35 for 50%, top 100 for 75% and top 200 for 94%. I agree with you that mentioning "in the top 100" sounds reasonable, but I hope this shows that a precise linear rank figure is actually statistically an unwise choice for presenting the sales figures. The web page also shows that the top 15 is relatively stable from the previous year's stats, but after that becomes increasingly unstable. So the bigger our "in the top X" group is, the less likely it is to be correct in 2020 and 2021 and 2022.

The other trap we have fallen into is in not really understanding what our data is for and its limitations, and then misleading our readers when we offer it. The website mentions "prescriptions" and explains this won't include sales of over-the-counter medications, and vitamins and alternative medications. But next to the chart it also says "outpatient prescriptions" so I wonder if that is a further aspect we should clarify. There are surely some medicines that are heavily used in a hospital. And I mentioned earlier this is an extrapolated figure from a poll sample, not actual sales figures such as would be known to a drug company.

Can we find examples of how sales (by value or volume or share of market or whatever) are presented by the literature. This might guide us better in how to generally present this stuff. -- Colin°^Talk 09:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Continued: dosage

In answering some queries for Memdmarti on estogen-related articles, I have found another issue—dosage relative to WP:NOT and WP:MEDMOS. There are multiple templates causing a problem because they are used in multiple articles in collapsed form: text is not supposed to be hidden in articles (MOS:DONTHIDE), so that needs fixing, but it is also unclear to me whether these templates should be used as they are at all (NOTADVICE).

See a sample list of many of them at Template:Estrogen dosages for breast cancer.

Then see a sample of how they are being used here—in collapsed form (DONTHIDE, and should not really be centered), and because the whole templates are included in multiple articles, their use in many articles may be UNDUE as well as off-topic to specific articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Shrunken pore syndrome

Could those knowledgeable have a look (renal)? This article is created by Anders Grubb and extensively cites ... Anders Grubb. There are two reviews by ... Anders Grubb.[5] It appears to be advancing some of the author's hypotheses, and additionally needs some style and writing cleanup. There are numerous reviews available, and I suspect the article could be written in a way that would comply with secondary sourcing, if someone has the time. On the surface, the situation appears similar to Ian Brockington and menstrual psychosis; if this is a recognized condition, so far only Grubb and colleagues seem to be publishing about it. I have gone through and identified the primary sources and reviews, but many of the reviews cited have nothing to do with shrunken pore syndrome, so there seems to be a lot of synthesis, and I am unsure how much to outright delete.

Related at Cystatin C. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like a kidney problem. Nephron is around occasionally. I don't know who else is interested in kidney-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look too (very happy to look at kidney-related articles), and certainly support the tags for improper synthesis and the need for primary sources. This is a syndrome first proposed in its current form in 2015 (Grubb et al; ), with a steadily increasing set of supporting of evidence. I think that having an article on this now is very reasonable, but I think that the early nature of our understanding of the syndrome, the almost absent knowledge regarding pathophysiology, means that the article should be more cautiously phrased. Klbrain (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Addendum: Pathophysiology is particularly unclear; perhaps "It has been speculated that it is both caused by, and exacerbates, cardiovascular disease."

If I was deeply cynical I would speculate that someone with an interest in selling tests for Cystatin C was looking for a use for it, as interest in using Cystatin C (as an alternative to creatinine) for measuring GFR declined. Klbrain (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Something is being pushed, certainly, as it is one research group using Wikipedia to advance their research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Klbrain: thanks for looking.

My inclination is to delete all of the original research/synthesis as most of the article is primary sources, and some of the reviews are synthesis, using older unrelated reviews. I suggest reducing the article to only what can be stated from the reviews, which are all Grubbs and colleagues, and taking care with the attribution in the lead, which now indicates this is his newly-discovered condition/hypothesis. Like the situation with Ian Brockington at menstrual psychosis, since this is all coming from one Swedish group, we don't know if it will eventually enjoy broader consensus.

Does anyone disagree that I should heavily prune the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine to prune for now, at least until there are subsequently supportive views (should these be forthcoming). On reflection I think that this could blossom into a larger field, but the current article does stretch to the speculative. Klbrain (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Current Opinions in Neurological Science

See User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat

What do we know about this journal, that published a copyvio of dementia with Lewy bodies?

1. Fymat, Alain, International Institute of Medicine and Science, here see Earwig
2. Fymat, Alain, International Institute of Medicine and Science, here, from this version, see Earwig

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We know (well, I found out) the following:

• The journal knows about the share-alike provision of the CC license, and uses a CC license for their website.
• They use a CC-BY license, meaning they should know that it requires attribution.
• The author has provided attribution for images used in the article.
• The article has been repeatedly copied into other journals (I found at least three different open access journals with the exact article).
• The license is different on each "reprint" (copy) of this article - some use BY, some use BY-SA, some use BY-NC...
• The article isn't listed on his researchgate profile in any form.
• Some of the copies I found go as far back as 2018 (see 1)

There's two possibilities - either the author published an article in a reputable journal which was then copyvioed by Wikipedia, not caught, and then either article (WP or the original) was copivioed into these OA journals, or the author copied from Wikipedia. However, given that I cannot, at all, find which article is the "original copy" (i.e. which article Mr. Fymat actually published himself), we cannot determine the "date" to reference - we are asking "the chicken or the egg" without knowing when we are looking at. Furthermore, without knowing the original article Mr. Fymat actually published, we cannot accuse him of copyvio - it is just as likely that Mr. Fymat published an OA article of his own under an appropriate license and with acceptable attribution (which he knows about given his attribution of the images used), and then his article was copied by these other OA journals without attribution.

Contacting the journal is going to be of next to no use - if anyone is actually concerned that their copyright over their contribution(s) to that article may be violated, I would suggest they contact Mr. Fymat and ask him for clarification on when he published an article on dementia, and ask him to provide proof he attributed you in it. Once you have proof that he attributed you, then you can contact the articles that copied his article and go after them, because they are violating your copyright.

TLDR: who knows who's violating who, but there's a somewhat decent chance it may not be Mr. Fymat violating Wikipedia(s contributors). It's still scummy as hell to use a Wikipedia article largely unedited as a scientific "review" article, but hey, it's open access journals - "you get what you pay for (or don't)". bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yuck. Published by Scientia Ricerca, which a quick Google search suggests is predatory. Does not appear to have a DOI or impact factor. And should not be confused with Current Opinion in Neurology, which is a legitimate journal. Re. Berchanhimez - SandyGeorgia wrote the majority of the WP article, so I think we can rule out copying in that direction. Spicy (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't do a check to see who wrote the majority of the article, but if it was SG then yes, I agree that it's more likely someone copied from us. Whether Mr. Fymat is the one who committed the copyvio we cannot know until we know where he published the article first - but all the copies of the article that don't attribute the Wikipedia editors are copyvios, yes. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes, he copied me ... I built DLB painstakingly over hundreds of edits with a dozen other editors working right along with me, and every mark of my less than stellar prose (since corrected by better copyeditors) is right there in all its glory. What a jerk Mr Flymat is. HE is the editor of those journals, [6] [7] and the version he copied is way back in 2018, when I built most of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The copied version is even further back, here is comparison to May 2018 (when I completed most text, with major copyedit in FAC prep in 2020) — Earwig. @Sphilbrick: ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, with the caveat that I've only just glanced at this thread, if someone is stealing and material without attribution I support going after them. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, he copied Alzheimer’s too, [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And Parkinson’s, [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this guy is a hoax. The institute he claims to work for is not real. If it were a real institute, or you found an affiliation I would suggest contacting the research integrity office. Similarly if he had a federal grant, the grant agency's office for research integrity could dump very large pile of bricks on plagiarist. As it happens I assume they are doing it as a scam to make their journal look real rather than for credit if that helps. Probably all smoke and mirrors. The only guy matching that name was active in the 1970s so I suspect a bit of identity theft too. PainProf (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, a search on his alleged phone numbers leads to an 81-year-old ... right: [10] I suspect I will get nowhere, as most of the editorial board contacts also lead nowhere. The 1970 publications could be his, and he could be somewhere in a nursing home now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

With three Featured articles copied, will not WMF Legal help? We need to add backwards copy templates to Alzheimer and Parkinson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I need to check several more articles, that are listed here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• editorial board ... all of these may have come from Wikipedia, but which articles to check?
• OMICs Wikipedia blacklist, change $ to s
• http://www.fiimas.org/Home_Page.html
• http://imedscience.ning.com/

And epilepsy, too. [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

WMF doesn't have a dog in the race here - they have no case to ask for removal as they do not own the copyright to the material, and in fact their legal department, unless they were representing you personally outside their relationship to WMF, could not issue DMCA takedown notices on your behalf. You on the other hand do. scientiaricerca.com is hosted by GoDaddy. You can find their copyright violation abuse reporting contact information at this site. www.auctoresonline.org is hosted by Endurance International Group, whose DMCA process is located here. Unfortunately, there is no easier way I know of to pursue violations of your copyright other than to issue a DMCA takedown notice to each individual website host.

To find abuse information for other websites, you can use any whois tool you like to find the host for the domain name. Some domain records will list abuse information in the whois record, and for others you may have to go search for it. As an example, in the second case (auctoresonline), I had to google "Endurance International Group", and at the bottom of that page they had a "infringement policy" with the information. You're certainly welcome to have a lawyer help you if you have access to one, but it's possible to form a DMCA takedown notice on your own - and in fact this page has a standard template you can use to provide a polite reminder, a more stern reminder, and a DMCA takedown notice if they don't respond to your first reminders. See specifically sections 2.1 and 2.2. IANAL but please consider that any notice you send could be posted online and be visible to everyone (and potentially connected to you) - in fact there are websites dedicated to posting DMCA takedown notice copies to prevent "censorship" and abuse (ex: lumen, previously known as chillingeffects.org).

TLDR: you can DMCA them yourself and I think you certainly should do so - you worked hard on things, and while you can't prevent others from reusing them (as you licensed them when you posted them on WP), you have the right to be credited for them anytime it's reused.

disclaimer: i'm not a lawyer by any means, but i've had to DMCA websites in the past for using content I created without my permission - not on wikipedia but from elsewhere. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Even though contacting the publisher (including a threat of a DMCA takedown in the letter) may not directly lead to retraction of the articles, it still might be useful as it would demonstrate good faith in trying to resolve the problem before pursuing legal remedies and thus strengthen the legal case against them. On their web site, they have a Article Withdrawal policy and copyright infringement or plagiarism are listed as grounds for retraction. Scientia Ricerca is on a list of Predatory Publishers, so I am also skeptical they will retract the article based on a single letter, but who knows, it just might work. If not, then the ground work for legal action has been laid. Boghog (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone ... My lawyer says, “wow” ... that’s a fancy legal term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. Based on the process listed there, I think that the real motivation is that their website could get kicked off the internet if they don't take them down (or correct the licensing vio, by adding attribution). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I see that, and that may be all I can accomplish. Once I come up with a concrete list and approach, I will subpage the whole mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: within the links above are multiple journals that could be added to your non-reliable script, at minimum these. @Ceoil, Colin, Outriggr, Seppi333, and Casliber: who were also plagiarized at DLB, along with Jytdog, Tryptofish, Doc James and Yomangani. Adrian J. Hunter, WhatamIdoing, and others edited later I think, as we were prepping for FAC in 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look this afternoon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the Auctores journal list: Auctores journals SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The only good news is that scientiaricerca.com doesn't appear anywhere in mainspace. Let's make sure it stays that way. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I figured out why they haven't polluted Wikipedia: XLinkBot is killing it.[12] But I can't decipher if that is still working. If it is still working, I can save myself the trouble of asking Headbomb to add all of them to the non-reliable list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

THEY CHARGE $889 to publish SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Added Scientiaricerca.com and Auctoresonline.org domains to the script. If you know the DOIs, or other domains, let me know at WT:UPSD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The stuff I wrote in the amphetamine article was extensively plagiarized a while back by some Omics journal (see the notice box on its talk page). If you want a copy of my demand letter, which the journal immediately actioned/forwarded to the authors and sorted out within a week, then LMK. Ping me again though because I’m stupidly busy off-wiki. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Started gathering info and questions at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(Just catching up after a walking holiday) This reminds me a bit of a similar fraud over photos at Commons Featured Pictures. (Sadly, it can happen the other way round too: we recently had an account on Commons who won lots of featured pictures and then we discovered they had stolen, not taken, all of them). I think the steps at the Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process look good advice. Unlike pictures, it is rather more work to explain the copyvio, so I suggest to keep the letter short, with any tedious explanation of the violations as an appendix. There are key phrases in these letters that must be used and are not optional, and important to state that it is "my" copyright that is being violated. I don't think there is any need to elaborate in the letter more than necessary -- they will have encountered this before and recognise the key phrases mean that the cogs are turning on a fixed legal process. See also Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter.

For what it is worth, I think tackling such extensive violation of several important topics is important mainly because if we don't then the copyright may come back round to bit us: some journal will claim our article stole their material. As far as "Someone is being an asshole on the internet" goes, my strong advice is generally to ignore it. -- Colin°^Talk 10:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Letters proposed

My first drafts of letters are at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters; if I have to escalate beyond that, the letters will come from an attorney instead of me. Feedback appreciated at User talk:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Letters seem to have worked at Auctores ... best I can tell, the entire article is gone. [13] No action yet from Scientia, and I am preparing legal groundwork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Asclepius Open also took down the content promptly after receiving letters. Round three with Scientiaricerca; they now have a letter from an attorney. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Alain L. Fymat articles without attribution to Wikipedia

More found, so one to watch for in predatory journal topics in neurology and cancer; see Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This week’s Signpost ... mentions ... Wikipedia, The Free Online Medical Encyclopedia Anyone Can Plagiarize: Time to Address Wiki-Plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Just as Michael Laurent is mentioning that we need to become more active in enforcing licensing (and need more help from WMF), I am realizing that Wikipedia admins are using content to which I own the copyright, on external sites, without including a link back to Wikipedia. This is a very odd situation just as I am preparing the legal work to deal with Fymat situation. It has been quite a haul to deal with this Fymat situation, and it is quite alarming to realize esteemed Wikipedians are not respecting Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Improper use of template, diverting en.Wikipedia readership

Further information: Template:Academic peer reviewed

Look at this; the first thing en.Wikipedia readers encounter is a link taking them off en.Wikipedia, to an old version. A project external to en.Wikipedia as the first thing encountered by our readers, and a dated "peer review" (meaning a few Wikipedians looked at it), while Wikipedia is dynamic, not static, and articles change.

The same external project template was found inappropriately used on multiple medical articles, including Featured articles (Cerebellum, Hippocampus and many more medical articles), where it was listed as a reference (which it is not). The external articles also breach WP:ELNO- does not include info that would be needed if the article were an FA -- so do not belong in external links. And they become dated as the articles evolve.

This is an example of misplaced priorities affecting en.Wikipedia medical content-- that is, rather than improving content on en.Wikipedia, content is improved off-en.WIkipedia and then en.Wikipedia readers are directed elsewhere. This template belongs on talk, and I have moved most of the medical ones there, although I have missed some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of articles that use it, not just medicine. Seems to be linking to Wiki Journal of Science or WikiJournal of Humanities though this one you found was PLOS Computational Biology. I think this should be discussed at a template for deletion or VP rather that this project, even though it was project members who created it. I agree, this is not what Wikipedia Article-space is for, but a template, worded appropriately, probably belongs on the article talk page banner. -- Colin°^Talk 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The template could be useful on talk, so I don't advocate for deletion-- just proper usage of the template, and awareness of this trend of moving en.Wikipedia resources to external projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Then again, maybe it should be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

SG I appreciate your removing template however I will discuss that w/ Dr Shafee, thank you(please respond here, please do not ping), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

[14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd assumed your maybe it should be deleted comment would link to a rational for deletion. If this was good faith error, here is a link to the previous deletion discussion for reference. If not, the link can sound like nominating template deletion as a retaliation for edit reversion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like it's about one-third on talk pages and two-thirds in articles (not always at the top).

Beetstra, do you have any views on the external link question?

Evolution and evolvability, I think you know something about the goals here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible solutions include: a) use it on talk, b) convert the template style to one compatible with all other sister projects so it can be added as other sister projects are (do we not have yet a better word than "sister"?). But, these articles are not references, and do not belong in the reference section or at the top of the article, and they breach WP:ELNO, so I am unsure they should even be listed in External links with other "sister" projects-- which do provide information that would not be added to a Featured version of the article.

At the same time, we need to encourage a better understanding that we cannot be transporting content between projects without full attribution. This external project (and others) are porting full articles back and forth without proper licensing and attribution. Per the Alain Fymat issue raised above,[15] I am in the process of registering a copyright so that I can pursue legal (DMCA) action, and it is alarming to find articles being transported in their entirety (that is, fully duplicated Wikipedia articles being added to an external forked Wiki) without a link back to the en.Wikipedia article, as required.[16] I hope those Wikipedia admins engaged in this activity will put an end to it, and include FULL LINKS BACK TO EVERY ARTICLE COPIED, rather than a general statement at the bottom that content to which en.Wikipedians own copyright is being forked to an external Wiki. Wikipedia:Copyrights, The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think anytime an article is mentioned/used in the news/an article it should be on the talk. The issue here seems to be whether we can link to a peer reviewed version of the article... I'm torn. On one hand, if a previous version of the article can be cited as a reliable or credible source in academia (i.e. not citing "wikipedia" but citing the peer reviewed version), then that's great. But on the other hand, the article is by definition going to change and ideally be improved - so who cares if the 2015 version was peer reviewed if nobody's reading that. Personally I think limiting it to the talk page is best, but iff it's included in the article's main page, it should be at the very bottom - below any references, but above any navboxes/similar. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If anyone tried to cite a Wikijournal "peer reviewed" article for a Featured article on Wikipedia, they'd be laughed out of the room. I can point you to one that used a student master's thesis to cite a statement that was later disproven with a real source, and removed from the en.Wikipedia article, and yet the peer reviewed version stands, and the student thesis was not apparently picked up by the "peer reviewers". One knows not how these peer reviewers are chosen, but in this case, the en.Wikipedia article is now superior to the old "peer reviewed" version. We have no reason to be linking in article space to old and dubious peer reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(User/say hi!) so your saying below references, ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(User/say hi!)I have done so per your suggestion, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Berchan said "if" and "very bottom"; you've added them back as References, with discussion underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Slight correction, I said iff - meaning "if and only if". I used it here to emphasize that only if we decide that this should go in the article should it be added there, not that it should be added there right now. I'm still undecided. I think it's potentially useful to readers to see that a previous version was submitted for peer review and published, but I'm meh on if it's useful enough to actually include. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC) p.s. I think it'd be nice to get actual peer review on past versions of articles, and it's my understanding that some have, but I agree that the vast majority of current uses of this template are dubious peer reviews at best. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying not even that. If it is to go below references, as a "Sister" project, then it should use a template formatted like the rest of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It is also important for you, Ozzie10aaaa to understand that "This site contains content from Wikipedia", with a link to Wikipedia's main page, does not comply with Wikpedia's licensing requirements, as explained in the links I provide above. On an external wiki, you need to be linking back to the articles you are copying. Not in edit summary where no one can see it. Edit summaries work for copying within Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion continues at User_talk:Iridescent#WikiProjectMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So, with discussion underway here, Ozzie10aaaa continues to re-add these links to the References section; [17] [18] They are not references for these articles; they are semi-duplicates of the articles. Because they are mostly duplicates, neither do they comply with MOS:FURTHER nor WP:ELNO, so how can they go there? There is no place at the bottom of the article they belong, unless they are reformatted to be added to sister link templates like all the rest of the "sister" projects. But the other Sister projects add something new, that can't be included in articles, while these add nothing new; they generally only duplicate old content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This does not belong in an article indeed, please remove them, or maybe move them to talk. It looks like advertising. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

rather than improving content on en.Wikipedia, content is improved off-en.WIkipedia and then en.Wikipedia readers are directed elsewhere. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what has happened. The content is created or improved off-Wikipedia and then imported into Wikipedia. The off-Wikipedia content is static, whereas the on-Wikipedia content can continued to be improved. {{Academic peer reviewed}} is only to provide attribution and is similar in purpose to {{NLM content}} and similar templates. Hence I think it is appropriate to include this template at the bottom of the page. Boghog (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

IF you think it is similar to NLM content (I don't, since they are basically copies) then please make the template look similar to NLM content, and work similar to NLM content. Yes, as Beetstra says, as of now, it is advertising that works to divert en.Wikipedia resources-- something that is in fashion of late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article in question was created in 2015 by Christophe Dessimoz who was also the senior author on the original PLOS Computational Biology publication on which the Wikipedia article is based. Furthermore the template was first placed at the bottom of the page by Dessimoz where is belongs. In 2019, it was moved to the top of the page in this edit with dubious justification. The intention of the template is attribution, not advertising. Boghog (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, if it is an attribution template, then it should behave like one, be worded like one, and be used like one-- by claiming the content CAME from there, not that the content HERE is reviewed there. And we have multiple cases working the other direction, content taken from en.Wikipedia to the journal site where it is improved, and then brought back here without attribution, so we have a licensing mess being furthered by these journal people. Perhaps we do need to AFD this template so they can start over and get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And we have multiple cases working the other direction That may be true in other cases, but certainly not true in this case. The PLOS Computational Biology article was published on 28 May 2015 and the Wikipedia article was created on 13 June 2015‎. That also applies to all other articles that use this template.

We could modify the template to state:

•  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 2.0 license. This text was originally published in < source > and passed academic peer review (here). It can be cited as: ...

Would this be adequate? Boghog (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Because of the license under which the material is made available, attribution is not optional. It is required. If we delete the {{Academic peer reviewed}} template without replacing it with something else, we would also have to delete all articles which transcribe this template. Boghog (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but still has several issues. First, let's not focus on one case; it does go both ways, so I am not sure how to solve that. Dyslexia started at en.Wikipedia, was taken over there where it was considerably improved, was brought back without attribution, and was damaged after it was brought back. The copying has gone both ways-- not sure how you can reflect that. And saying "it can be cited as" is just advertising baloney, as most of them are dated and no one in their right mind would be citing them. That verbiage belongs over there-- the version over here can't be cited since it's not the same, so that doesn't belong here. That it passed some sort of "academic review" over there has nothing to do with what is here, and is advertising-- of the type that is serving no purpose other than draining resources from Wikipedia, because rather than improving articles HERE we have editors working over there, and then claiming what was there is somehow relevant to the dynamic article that is here. We need a straight template like all the other attribution templates that simply says, This article incorporates text from ... " and nothing else. The "academic review" over there is meaningless over here, and only belongs on talk. Particularly since we have at least one case where that "academic" review accepted a faulty student thesis, so MEDRS is not even upheld. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (I remembered not to ping you) - this can be solved instantly by taking a list of editors on the "external site" (whatever it may be), and putting it on the talkpage of the article, then making a WP:Dummy edit to the article itself that says "some content on this page may have been copied from outside WP, see the talkpage for details". So long as the information (link and editors) remains on the talkpage, it's compliant. There is no need to tell readers of the article - just as there's no need to tell readers of any article copied within Wikipedia that it came from another Wikipedia article.

Regardless, at this point, it may very well be better to simply remove all content that was copied off and/or copied back in in this manner - it makes it hard to handle and we can just as easily rewrite articles from scratch. I also think that editors that are routinely working collaboratively offsite and not providing proper attribution upon copying back in should not be permitted to do so anymore, but c'est la vie.

TLDR: either copy list of editors and link to the talk page and maintain attribution that way, or WP:NUKE and start over ourselves - people should not be encouraged that this type of off-site collaboration on WP articles is acceptable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can nuke articles just because they weren't attributed :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Back to the template. A search only shows 41 articles using it, along with 15 talk pages. If the consensus is for it to only be placed on talk pages, I can modify the template to only display on talk pages and give a message in preview if placed on an article page to avoid future problems. It wouldn't take many minutes to move all of the present 41 uses from article to talk. Can we try to find a consensus on that single issue first? --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: If it's truly being used as a form of attribution, moving it to the talk page wouldn't suffice - Boghog is right. However, if you say "moving attribution for past edits to talk page - see talk page for attribution" or similar, that would be fine.

Personally, I think attribution does not deserve templating in the article itself - so moving to the talk page (while maintaining the attribution via an edit summary) is ideal. Unless there's some reason this needs special treatment, I agree with SG that this is WP:ELNEVER - and probably shouldn't be in articlespace at all. I would only accept this if a Wikipedia article was actually submitted to a reliable journal for publication and accepted after peer review - at that point, it should potentially be noticed on the article itself. Simply copying it to what honestly seems like a predatory journal that simply substantially copies Wikipedia articles and "peer reviews" them does not deserve a mention on the article itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has imported too much of Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition and too many US government documents to fuss about whether a particular journal's review process is impressive enough. We should evaluate the contents of these articles according to our usual standards – just as if they never reviewed it – and comply with the license terms in the same way that we comply with license terms (and not just incidentally, avoid plagiarism) to the other content that we've taken from other potentially imperfect sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Boghog's concern about the CC-BY 2.0 (CC-BY part is fine, but Wikipedia is 3.0) probably needs to be resolved first. Ideally, there will be no version of any of article with imported text that doesn't contain one of the Category:Attribution templates. Once that's done, I'm willing to have this template on the talk page. And you're right: there are only a handful of affected pages, so if they're all basically the same (in license terms), this task could be finished in less than an hour. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, if the template is only used on talk, I am OK with it as is. We have other ways of templating talk for attribution as well, when attribution was omitted or forgotten at the copy stage, so that should cover all bases. If others WANT more specific attribution in article, then we need to go with some sort of general attribution template as discussed above with BogHog. As far as I can tell, WAID and I are saying the same thing and are in agreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. This template is fine on the talk page as-is, and the normal attribution processes apply (e.g., the template mentioned by Boghog above). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

At Template:Academic peer reviewed/sandbox, I've created a draft version of the template that displays only on article talk pages, other than giving a message when the non-talk page is previewed. It seems to work as intended when I tested it, so if there's a reasonable consensus, it's easy to copy it over the main template.

FWIW, when I translate articles from other language Wikipedias, I use Template:Translated page on the talk page of the article for attribution, so there would seem to be a precedent for attribution taking place there. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox looks fine to me. On translations to other language Wikipedias, we have the benefit that we ALSO have provided a link back to the other language article, via the language links in the sidebar ... which makes it very easy to click on any language, see if an article has been translated, and make sure attribution was done. I get less concerned about those because of our language links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Apologies for being late to this thread, so I've responded to a few different items together and tried to semi-structure it and include relevant links where possible.

Usage scenarios These templates are used in a couple of scenarios and by multiple different journals (category):

1. Content started externally and peer reviewed, then moved into WP (WP:J2W, as is the case for PLOS topic pages & some WJ articles)
2. Content started in WP, moved external and peer reviewed, then moved back into WP (WP:W2J, as is the case for Open Med & some WJ articles)

For a bit of the historical background, there's a rough timeline on slide 10 of this presentation (video link in description).

Template aims In my opinion, the template aims to achieve a few goals which sometimes overlap:

1. To acknowledge imported CC-BY-x content (similar to template usually at the bottom of pages)
2. To indicate article quality assessment (similar to templates usually at the top of pages)
3. To transparently link to the external peer review process
4. To address the scenario of student knows they're not allowed to cite a WP page because it's not peer reviewed, but there is a citable version of record available
5. To cross-link to another relevant project (similar to this template usually at the bottom of pages)

Template location I would broadly suggest that templates in articles are for readers and those on talkpages are for editors, since the majority of readers don't use (often unaware of) talkpages. That's why I've thought that it would be valuable to represent the information on the article page. TBH, I'd actually support having FAs more clearly marked on the article page, since users commonly don't realise the significance of the top icon star. I agree that the template shouldn't be at the top of the article page though. I would have thought that placing it underneath the main page navboxes is also going to far in the opposite direction. The reason that I have thought placing in the references section is logical is that it relates to sourcing and information provenance. The location of similar templates is often inconsistent (example at top of refs; example in own sources subsection).

Template formatting & content I'd originally reformatted it from plain text to something similar to {{Confusing}} or {{Missing_information}} to try and be more consistent in style. If formatted to something more in the style of {{CC-notice}} that is fine by me, though noting again that the template is trying to fill several goals. The limitation of using a sister project only template is that many instances do not draw from a wikijournal user group journal, but instead from a PLOS journal or other publishers (for example doi:10.15347/wjs/2019.006 versus doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008320). Two things the template currently lacks: Mentioning the specific license being used in the attribution, and whether it's J2W or W2J. I think the citation does need to be indicated somewhere, as it would seem odd to have e.g. TIM_barrel or Pfemp_1 include sources for the images but not the text. Since people seem to be happy with the formatting of the copy of the template in talkspace, below are suggestions for how the copy of the template could behave in mainspace (suggested location top of references section, bottom of references section as a fallback option):

• For cases where content was first in the journal (WP:J2W):   This article incorporates (or is based on?) text and images originally published in <source> in <year> under a <CC BY x> license and passed academic peer review (here). It can be cited as: ... if you are in need of a stable version of record.
• For cases where content was first in WP (WP:W2J):   This article was submitted to <source> in <year> and passed academic peer review (here). The content has been reintegrated here under a <CC BY x> license. It can be cited as: ... if you are in need of a stable version of record.

I think including the year is useful so that people know how much the wikipedia page is likely to have evolved since then. I'm aiming to better encode whether the article is W2J or J2W in wikidata (example) to automate the template's display.

Other items I'd contest that One knows not how these peer reviewers are chosen and dubious peer reviews at best. The peer reviewer comments are actually published openly as are the editor instructions (links for WJ and PLOS), and guidelines for reviewers (links for WJ and PLOS). This is actually more transparent than many other academic journals (where peer reviews are typically hidden and reviewer guidelines are rarely open). Indeed the PLOS Comp Bio open peer reviews were some of the earliest to be open for that journal.

I'd contest that This external project (and others) are porting full articles back and forth without proper licensing and attribution. Whenever articles are ported out of WP by the projects that use {{Academic peer reviewed}}, the page includes:

• "This article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Science. It is adapted from the Wikipedia article Tree swallow. It contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License and will also be used to update that article after peer review. You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page." (from example)
• a second statement about its relationship with the WP page: "Wikipedia: This work is adapted from the Wikipedia article Widgiemoolthalite. Content has also subsequently been used to update that same Wikipedia article Widgiemoolthalite." (from example)
• a hyperlink to the full list of contributors after the submitting author(s) list (as an xtools link)
• all images attributed in the caption on the page itself in case people want to download as a pdf
• I've started mentioning the license in the edit summaries as well when moving material when it was pointed out that this would help (example) and leave a talkpage comment (example).

I hope that this at least shows good faith efforts to get the licensing correctly organised even when sometimes there are gaps!

I'd contest the serving no purpose other than draining resources from Wikipedia comment. I really wouldn't characterise it as that. I actually think that the projects involved have been very useful in drawing significant content and input from many people who would otherwise not have contributed, as authors editors and peer reviewers. Both the J2W and W2J models of collaboration are not in competition with WP, but rather deliberately trying to be on tool in the toolbox for bridging the academia-wikipedia gap and getting in outside contribution.

I realise that over the last hours a few templates have been moved so the placement is now pretty inconsistent, but can I also suggest gaining input from other groups? It affects a few other wikiprojects (category), whose users may not commonly view WT:MED. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If text has been copied from off-WP and needs an attribution statement then I think this should be done as plainly as possible, in a way that does not confuse the reader into thinking this was a reference, and positioned down the bottom of the article. If text has been copied from WP to another site, this is of no concern to our readers, but talk pages banners have been used in the past to let editors know their work has been reused elsewhere. On the article page, we are all equals and have to live with our contributions, big or small, being buried in a list of edit history, rather than prominently mentioned in the article page, so any attribution of off-WP text imported should be modest and limited to that required by the licence. That a version of the article in the past has had an off-wiki review is also really not of concern to our readers because we have no control over the quality of that review. In contrast, GA/FP reviews are a community process and result in a simple icon and small plain text comment. The format of the banner on the talk page can have flashing lights and photographs of the authors and their pet dogs for all I care :-) -- Colin°^Talk 12:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Re the five aims:

1. Then use an attribution template, not a template that directs our readers to a dated and too-often inaccurate "peer reviewed" external site.
2. Not an accurate assessment of Wikipedia quality-- not relevant in mainspace. MOST of these are dated, and to alarmingly old versions.
3. To transparently encourage readers to leave en.Wikipedia would be another way to state that.
4. I hope we are not encouraging any student to cite these dated "peer reviews" when better and more current sources are often available. This point makes the strongest argument for getting these templates out of article space. ANYONE can initiate a WP:FAR if an FA is outdated, and voila, that little bronze star goes away (unlike this template which stays as of now regardless of accuracy) so your comparisons elsewhere of this process to FA is wrong, and installing a template in mainspace implying that an old peer review by reviewers of dubious origin is detrimental. Further, most of our readers probably have no idea what that little bronze star in the upper right corner even means, unlike this template that makes claims about the article quality in plain sight, which are misleading in the many cases I have reviewed (medical-- cannot speak to other areas).
5. That is usually accomplished via standard "sister" templates, which can be combined at the bottom of the page. The other sister projects provide info that can't necessarily be incorporated into en.Wikipedia. This project does not: it merely takes work that should be happening on en.Wikipedia off Wikipedia and drains resources, so that people who have sometimes inferior content can get it "published" nonetheless.

This template does NO service to our readers, and in fact, does a disservice. RexxS's solution works; the template is fine if used on talk, and if an attribution template is needed here, design one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed templates

I'll mainly focus here on the template itself, as I think criticisms about peer review are best addressed in a separate thread if necessary (review comments for the article at the start of this thread). I'm in favour of increasing transparency in peer review, so suggestions are always welcome.

For the template's contents (see sandbox), the version to display on talkpages with additional license info. For the version on the main article, the sandbox version is adapted from {{OA-attribution}}.

Main page

For a J2W article:

For a W2J article:

Talk page

For a J2W article:

For a W2J article:

{{OA-attribution}} templates are mainly at the base of references section (though usually when there are small number of refs; example), the top of the refs (example) or in a separate notes/sources section (example) and sometimes inline (example). I think that top of references is reasonable given that the content. Especiially since the majority of text is coming from that . Similar templates include: {{PlanetMath attribution}} either below refs (example), below ext links (example) or in sources (example); {{CC-notice}} in attributions (example) end of refs (example) or inline (example);{{InterPro content}} placed top of refs (example) or bottom of refs (example) or further reading (example); {{CCBYSASource}} bottom of refs (example) or below ext links (example); {{NSW-SHR-CC}} placed in attributions (example). The talkpage copy of the template could be adapted for articles in review to invite further feedback and contribution (example), or those for declined (example). I hope I've managed to satisfy your main concerns. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This is very good progress, sorting what basically amounts to a standard attribution template from what is the sorta/kinda equivalent of a Wikipedia:WikiProject template used on talk, or media recognition, etc. That you have also sorted the here to there, there to here issue is grand. But I submit that we aren't there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Main page (attribution)

1. Please explain "adapted from the following source" as opposed to "incorporates text from", which is what we're used to seeing.
2. The proposed templates are providing links that are not the most helpful for the average reader or for the Wikipedia editor. Unlike other standard sources that may be attributed in references when copied, for something that DID come from a "sister" project, it you must include diffs to internal processes, it is more helpful to see which version is coming and going, to easily decipher what has changed, improved or degraded and how to get back to the best version for English Wikipedia. The "reviewer reports" link is relevant over there, not here, so is taking unnecessary space here. When we attribute other sources, we don't link to their review process. Presumably, once one goes over to the "sister" site, if one is interested, one can find that sort of detail there. But no! When I click over there via the link given, I can't for the life of me find where the article was developed, who made what edits, find the edit history, etc. In other words, I cannot find attribution. So I don't know what purpose the "reviewer reports" link is serving on a J2W.
3. Similarly, for a W2J, as an editor or a reader, I am not interested in linking directly to "reviewer reports". As a reader, I'm only interested in the linked source. As an editor, I want a link to know what DIFF came from there, and to what DIFF it was imported here. That's what I need for attribution. Please consider the situation when trying to sort a mess like this. As an editor, you encounter a very poor article on the English Wikipedia, with a claim that it was peer reviewed. You try to find how that came to be, eventually discover a fine article on a "sister" project, eventually figure out how and when it was imported to Wikipedia without attribution (but you have to dig to find the diff, since there's no edit summary or exact date), and only then can you begin to figure out what went wrong and how you can begin the process of recovering a good version. As an editor, your templates should somehow get us to the version it came from and the version it came to-- the reviewer links are an internal process "over there", not relevant "over here".
4. And similarly again, all of the templates give years but not full dates. Same as above ... when trying to track down how an article got changed, we need full dates, not years.
5. Please educate me on why Wikidata is included in the attribution template? In article space, our first concern is the reader. Minimize bulk, put what the reader needs ... they just need the article that text was incorporated from. These templates are trying to do too much at once, which is why the "look, fell and smell" like advertising to take traffic off of Wikipedia, unlike attribution templates to government websites, for example. Take one of your examples at Template:NSW-SHR-CC-- it's not doing anything more than providing attribution. Not taking tons of real estate in article space, not linking to internal processes, just giving us attribution.
6. Similarly, the wording and link "Academic peer review" are not needed-- that's not serving the reader, and it's unnecessary puffery/advertising (not to get into the other discussion, but dubious as well).

Talk page

1. Tame talk clutter. Have a look at this. Article talk pages must be functional for discussion of article improvement, because that is their main purpose! Trudging through scores of On this Day, WikiProjects, In the News, media mentions, etc overwhelms talk and defeats its purpose. Look at images here; this is why a good portion of my (deleted) edit count was devoted to "taming talk clutter", when Gimmetrow, Maralia and I built the articlehistory templates for every single featured and good article a decade ago. Talk pages are again getting unmanageable. WikiProject templates and others can be rolled into a banner ... we can achieve less clutter by keeping the templates somewhat standard, and hopefully at least the same size. I am unable to tell if you have done that, since I don't speak the code, but I am seeing two different sizes above, when most talk page templates have a standard size. Please work towards standardization so that, ten years from now when a talk page has two dozen templates that are dated and irrevelant to the current article, they can be rolled into a banner without being obtrusive and giving the impression they were created to advertise rather than attribute and help editors.
2. Journals are italicized on Wikipedia: they aren't bolded.
3. Same for "stable version of record"; content changes and medicine advances, that wording is not serving either editors or readers and is chunking of WIkipedia spaces with unhelpful puffery.
4. Full date, not just year ... want to be able to track changes when articles degrade (as they do over time) to be able to get back to good version. And diffs that brought content to here or to there.
5. Ditto to everything above about the Process link-- all of these templates are about justifying and legitimizing the process "over there", which is internal to there, not useful or helpful here.
6. Same question for Wikidata. And if we need it, why both in main space and in talk space.

In other words, the long and short here is that these templates still aren't looking, feeling and acting like most templates on English Wikipedia, or giving either the reader or editor the most useful and helpful info. They are instead taking up a lot of real estate with lots of flashing lights that would make good advertising on a freeway billboard. It would be good to take into consideration that this "sister" project is no more of less than any other thing (ITN, OTD, FAC, WikiProject, DYK, etc) linked on talk, and trying to be more in line with everyone else would be nice; that would lend a better impression that this "sister" project is working to advance Wikipedia, rather than itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I see you are installing them without adjustment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, Dengue fever is linking to Lysenin ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the template from the adjusted /sandbox version (edit histories of templates [19] [20] [21] for ref). It now formats differently on mainpages and talkpages as well as better reflection the relevant licenses and other info depending on the type of article (see docs for examples). The mainpage version is more akin to {{OA-attribution}} and {{NSW-SHR-CC}} since it's attribing the source as a starting point for further evolution on WP. The talkpage version now uses {{tmbox}} and I've tried to minimise vertical space taken as far as possible (takes up 2 lines on my screen) whilst including more useful detail for editors. The main functional change is that where QID was previously optional, it's now required and all info is drawn from wikidata. The inclusion of QIDs is part of the {{Cite_Q}} template, which is somewhat linked to the broader wikicite project to improve open citation information. I think the dengue issue was because it'd been because it didn't have the QID in the template. I've now fixed that. I'll get to work on ensuring all the wikidata is up to date with additional parameters. Evolution and evolvability 07:48, 16 August 2020‎ (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability:, we now have broken talk page at Talk:Dyslexia (I can't tell what you intended there) and another template that points to Lysenin, and I still can't find diffs and we still have info in article space that is less than helpful for readers. Looking at Dyslexia#References:

1. There is no link to the article over at Wikijournal.
2. Why do we need a link to Reviewer reports, an internal process at an external project, in article space?
3. Why do our readers need to see Wikidata?
4. We still don't have a diff, but I am guessing that is the Lysenin error? Can't tell ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like they are all linking to Lysenin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Late response on this. I think there is a link to the article over at WJ but if you include an example I'll see if I've missed something. I think linking to reviewer reports promotes good information literacy practice in being able to audit a source and there doesn't seem to be particular harm to it. The general thinking over at the Cite_Q template is that linking to the wikidata item ensures that all the info is editable (roughly equivalent to linking to commons for images), through there's discussion in more explicitly including an edit pencil icon to emphasise that. The lysenin page was used as the example in the sandbox version -the live version currently used on pages should link to the timepoint of the page's history (the diffs are not always contiguous). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

D-Dimer role in covid 19 diagnosis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7286212/

Generally RT-PCR test is a gold standard for confirmation of Covid-19. But in some times if RT-PCR not available , why dont we take the D-Dimer values for Confirmation Covid-19? Fever, Cough and high levers of D-Dimer may gives a clue to physician to suspect Covid-19

(KJRMOR (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)) (KJRMOR (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

Unfortunately, that's a primary source (original results), so we probably shouldn't be using it. I'm hoping that we can move the COVID-19 articles towards secondary sources. The six-month anniversary of Italy's lockdown is a few weeks away, and I'm hoping that it will bring us so,e good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

We can consider the elevated values of D-Dimmer to analyse the death risk for Covid-19 (KJRMOR (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

Maybe physicians can, but Wikipedia editors don't do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on redirecting a couple articles

Hello, recently I created and moved injector pen to mainspace, fully well knowing that insulin pen and pen needles already exist. My thought process was that there quite honestly isn't much usable information in those two articles (one has zero references at all), and so I figured I'd start from scratch and make the article about the general device itself (as opposed to just being used for insulin). How would I go about redirecting the two articles and/or adding any useful information to injector pen, if that's in fact okay to do? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The mechanics of merging are described at Wikipedia:Merging. In essence, you copy all of the usable stuff into the parent article and then overwrite each daughter article with a redirect. If you copy stuff verbatim, you should make a note in your edit summary along the lines of "content copied from <permalink to version of daughter article>". The redirects will contain the page history required for attribution. Don't forget to make the daughter talk pages into redirects as well. If you're in any doubt about about whether there might be objections, you should follow the steps at Wikipedia:Merging #Proposing a merger. Let me know if you run into problems. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any reasonable doubts - the useful material in either article is already covered in injector pen, and the material not covered is just "fluff" or not encyclopedic. The three references in insulin pen aren't likely usable in the injector pen article, and the material in that article isn't even sourced. Pen needles just has content that's already covered in injector pen. From my reading of Wikipedia:Merging, this means I should be okay to just redirect the two articles? I'm a little confused by what is meant by "objections" - I'm sure someone worked hard on the content but is that a valid reason for them to "object" when the article to be redirected to is more sourced, and more encyclopedic? That's why I'm hesitant to just go off and do it myself - without at least seeing if another person or two agree that there likely won't be any objections. Thanks as always for the input User:RexxS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Just go ahead and do it. You'll need four redirects (two articles + two talk pages). The worst that could happen is that you get reverted and end up debating the merge. Thanks for your efforts improving the articles. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the input RexxS - if anyone has concerns or reverts I'll be sure to explain/discuss before redoing the redirects. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That looks good. Congratulations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of inflammed body part states

Discussion on renaming. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Favipiravir review needed

The Favipiravir article contains a lot of COVID-related claims with inadequate sourcing, expert review needed. Thank you. It might also be worth keeping an eye on Alpha defensin. HLHJ (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Favipiravir approved in Russia , India , China for Covid-19 management(KJRMOR (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

Thanks to RexxS. One "research" section still reads a bit like a Chinese-government press release, but the un-MEDRS-supported content is vastly reduced. HLHJ (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Request review of Expertscape submission

We are requesting review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Expertscape, as many of the experts that are profiled often list and refer to the website in their pages.

Expertscape is a more data-driven (and more objective) alternative to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_%26_World_Report_Best_Hospitals_Rankings, as our expert directory is driven entirely by the data in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed. We recognize that there are limitations to using only publications, which we recognize here https://expertscape.com/help/gen_limitations, but it has proven to be an excellent objective resource for patients and referring physicians. (And it is evidently used extensively for grant applications and other recognition.)

Any advice or assistance would be appreciated.

Brendan B4chex11 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

B4chex11, don't bother submitting it yet; it'll get rejected in its current form. It's not overly promotional (which is a feat to be proud of), but you need to find Wikipedia:Independent sources that talk about Expertscape as a company/product. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations may help. (It won't qualify as a subject under the usual rules for websites, so you will have to focus on the organization.) If you can't find several (three is good) newspaper/magazine articles about Expertscape, then you could see if there's a list of ranking-related websites that would benefit from including Expertscape. Keep in mind that a news article along the lines of "Local doctor ranked best in the world by Expertscape" is probably not going to do you any good. You need articles like "Expertscape wins award" or "New website founded". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is incredibly helpful, and we can certainly do that homework. Thank you.

B4chex11 (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS - question

Speaking as an academic with experience in published peer reviewed papers. If you only cite systematic reviews and meta analysis then many of your entries will be outdated. For a proper meta analysis most physicians academics would look for a subject where there are 2-3 randomised trials with somewhat contradicting results. Otherwise, if all of the randomised trials are of similar outcomes they risk not reporting anything new (more of the same). In certain fields you simply will not have 2-3 randomised trials and therefore will often not have a meta analysis or systematic review. Therefore, this guideline is handicapping you in way and leading to a situation where many of your medical entries (at least in ophthalmology) are severely outdated (>5 years) and irrelevant. Today I made changes in 9-10 entries (my first...) all of which were evidence based and Would be considered obvious/basic knowledge for many Ophthalmologists but all entries were reverted because I cited original articles (not reviews). Very discouraging. Highqualitycontent (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Highqualitycontent: It sure is discouraging to get your work reverted. But you have to appreciate the difficulty of the opposite position. We rely on a model where anybody can edit, and there's no getting away from that principle. So how do you think we would deal with a situation where an expert comes along and says "these primary studies are obvious/basic knowledge for xyz", but another expert comes along and changes them to their favourite research, telling us that "those primary studies are obvious/basic knowledge for xyz"? Do we have to work out who is the genuine expert? Should we be demanding proof of expertise before allowing someone to edit (hint: we would have no editors). The model of recruiting subject experts to write content was tried almost 20 years ago and failed. Have you heard of Nupedia? Neither has anybody else. But Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia created in history. You have to give us credit for doing something right.

Then what about the problem that a significant proportion of test research is never able to be duplicated? How do we stay up to date with the latest, breaking research, if there's a good chance that it may turn out to be ephemeral and irreproducible? Of course, if every editor were capable of analysing these primary studies and separating the wheat from the chaff, we'd have no problem. Sadly, they are not, and we don't take anybody's word for their expertise or authority (otherwise, I'll just claim to be the Pope, and hence infallible). See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-03-05/Essjay for a classic example.

The solution to our problems is to insist that some independent, external people do the analysis of the primary sources and publish their analysis under the constraints of peer-review in a good quality journal. That fixes the problems we would otherwise encounter, but does leave the issue that affected you: we're out of date until a new quality secondary source comes along. But that's okay: we've survived and prospered with that model. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, after all. I'm genuinely sorry that your experiences seem to have left a bitter taste in your mouth, but it's the price we pay to keep our content of the highest (if sometimes outdated) quality.

Google Scholar turns up about 264,000 results for ophthalmology since 2016. Searching PubMed for reviews with [Mesh major topic] = ophthalmology, dated 2016 to present, gives me 299 results. if I were writing about ophthalmology, I'd think that was probably a promising resource to work with. YMMV of course. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You make valid points. I am saying that in cases where there are no systemic reviews or meta analysis the next best thing should be allowed (a randomised controlled trial). By the way citing the success and relevance of Wikipedia now does not mean it will survive in 10 years if it’s criteria for evidence based medicine are faulted. Highqualitycontent (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is allowed. I've readded your material with your source here for one article in particular because I could not find quite literally any reviews about intravitreal injection side effects which cover the incidence of incorrect eye administration - which means that per WP:MEDRS an attributed primary study such as a RCT is permissible. Please note, however, that we do not take RCTs and use them to say statements of fact - we use RCTs to say "one study (by x y z/in year/in population/etc) found ..." - which I've changed your information in that article to do. I think you also need to remember, User:Highqualitycontent, that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository for "evidence based medicine" - we are not a medical textbook, nor are we a medical discussion board/forum/etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a general repository of general information for the general public. We do not have to be the most up to date, and we do not have to cover every single study out there unless it's important. I think that 8.6% of people administering injections into the wrong eye is definitely important, hence why I readded that one study to that article, but not every new study will be important to add in an article here - even if it contains "new" or "different" information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for readding the entry. I believe that in all the content I contributed I wrote in a careful manner. For instance you will see that I used phrasing such as “reported risk factors include....”. I think that the average joe wants to know what risk factors they may have before an ophthalmic procedure. Rarely would a systematic review or meta analysis or even a randomised controlled trial answer a question like that. Large epidemiological studies with huge number of patients (eyes) are the only ones that could possibly address questions like that and they are always retrospective. One of the entries (before my contribution) mentioned one risk factor without even citing any studies. All I did was add additional reported risk factors and cite literature.... I appreciate your willingness to see the points I’m trying to make. By the way, I wrote these entries for an average Joe not a PhD or MD. Highqualitycontent (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

They may want to know, but there's a difference between saying "the risk factors are x y z" versus saying "according to <so and so>, risk factors are x y z". I think that is the primary problem with your edits - you're taking one random trial and using it to state things as facts. I agree that some articles are wrong here - Wikipedia isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean we can't hold ourselves to the standards when we notice problems or are adding new material. If there isn't a systematic review, then attributing statements to individual trials is important because it avoids the case where Joe Schmoe's trial says "diabetes is a risk factor for death" versus Phil Schmil's trial which says "diabetes decreases the risk of death" - without good meta-analysis, we would not have any idea which is correct, so we report both and attribute them, or report neither. You did good by saying "reported" risk factors, but it's important to say who is doing the reporting. If it's a meta-analysis, systematic review, or other 'strong' evidence, then you don't even need to say "reported" - but otherwise, attribute them to the studies mentioned.

I think RexxS made a good point - there are almost 300 review articles on pubmed for ophthalmology since 2016 - and I guarantee you that most of that information isn't in Wikipedia because we have very few medical editors. User:Highqualitycontent, might I recommend looking past these edits from specific trials for now, and see what you can find in those 300ish reviews on pubmed (or at least any you have access to), and improving articles based on those? It took me a while to get in to the swing of editing Wikipedia myself - luckily I had nice editors like RexxS and SandyGeorgia who were helpful and tried to guide me with guidelines, policies, and pages of information to writing in "encyclopedia style" - which is very different from even a general webpage. You may find it easier to make small changes based on missing information from review articles for now to start, then improving based on feedback, and going back to these edits in a week or two after you've had time to "practice" using what is always the best source - after having some more experience with encyclopedia tone of writing and the like. There is no deadline for Wikipedia - it is always a work in progress, and if the information has been missing for years/decades, it's not likely that one more week is harmful at all. I'd be happy to assist you if I can, but keep in mind that RexxS and the other editors here are also a great resource for you. Taking it slow at first is likely a good idea - because I'd hate for you to make a dozen edits which all get undone because of something that you could've solved after one edit if you had taken the time to ask for help. It's daunting, I know, but I think you have the potential to help a lot with our medical articles - just the exact policies are tripping you up. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, Highqualitycontent, just in case it's not clear, we do want you to stick around and help out. We know that our ophthalmology (also optometry) content needs to be cleaned up. If you poke around, you might be surprised at just how much any knowledgeable person could clean up, especially in the category of removing inaccurate content.

Editors have made a sort of bargain in MEDRS that prioritizes stable, accepted information over the leading edge. Some might call it a Faustian bargain (although I don't see it that way myself), but we are aware that there are downsides to it. We won't be up to date. We'll sometimes be wrong when we could be right. But there are benefits, too, and most of us believe that however imperfect this is, it's not as bad as all the others that have been tried from time to time. I hope that you'll stick with us, and help us out. We really do need you (and all your professional friends, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It actually means a lot considering that my entire life has been about evidence based medicine and when I see medical statements that are not backed by citations considered “kosher” but medical statements that are backed by papers published in leading journals (in my field) getting removed (forgive me) by non professionals (in my field) it is very frustrating. Highqualitycontent (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Highqualitycontent, you mention "systematic reviews and meta analysis", but those are in fact only two kinds of high quality sources that are acceptable, and for various reasons, including those you give, they tend to only focus on a very limited domain of information (evidence something helps or evidence it causes harm) and can be not always recent. We very much also make use of narrative reviews and professional academic textbooks for information. In some ways, those can be even better than the very algorithmic approach of those other review kinds, which tend to conclude "Not enough evidence" even for things that have been indicated and approved and used for decades. The medics like to pretend they follow "evidence based medicine" but if that was the case, most of them would spend the day sitting on their hands. Official clinical guidelines from groups or professional bodies can also be invaluable, because most of them take the evidence-based approach to start with, and then combine that with some collective professional experience to fill in the gaps. It is often frustrating for expert editors to be denied the ability to create their own narrative review of the primary literature on Wikipedia, but really we have found that you can prove and claim just about anything by citing primary research. -- Colin°^Talk 07:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrt what edits are kept and what are changed, yes you are seeing the problem where "recent changes" (such as your edits) are more likely to be scrutinised than longstanding text which could be unsourced or in fact could not be verified by the claimed source at all. One problem is that some "facts" will simply be accepted by editors who are ignorant of the field, whereas an expert would immediately spot the crap. So that is one reason why it is very good to retain expert editors. But on the other hand, we can't simply trust your expertise, and sadly there are cases where we trust in someone who has claimed professional qualifications, but who turns out to be unconcerned with facts vs their agenda. -- Colin°^Talk 07:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I hear your comments and raise ;). Please look at the entry where all of my changes were reverted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK

It is plagued with primary studies. An overwhelming majority. If you have decided to have a certain guideline that you claim you do then why are all of these references kept and the ones I suggested removed? Highqualitycontent (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and know that 99% of what is on Wikipedia is junk; sorry, but anyone can edit and we can't catch it all :) See also WP:NOTNEWS. And welcome-- we are glad to have you! IF there are primary studies at Lasik that need to be deleted, we should do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The LASIK articles (there's a sprawling complex, and each seems to have been written at some point by someone who's trying to sell "his" version) are one of the ones I had in mind. According to the "rules", we could take a weed whacker to those articles, but it'd be so much better, at least as an interim measure, if someone who knew something about it removed the bad/doubtful/inappropriate content and left the better stuff to be hopefully upgraded later.

Highqualitycontent, do you know how to add tags to articles? If you see a sentence that is correct, but the source is weak, you can paste in this code: {{Better source|date=August 2020}} or specifically for primary sources, {{Primary source inline|date=August 2020}}. Just add those codes right after the ref tags for the weak source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the history, User:Hipal seems to have gone through your contribs reverting them all. It is likely one of your edits showed up on his watchlist, and then he investigated the edits by this newbie user and decided to remove them all. That being the case, it isn't really about the quality of the existing material on any one article, just that he spotted an editor adding medical facts and citing primary research papers. IMO, as a project, we have got way too keen on reverting others, than on finding alternative methods, such as opening a discussion first.

The other big problem with citing the primary literature is WP:WEIGHT: we need to give prominence and balance to material in proportion to that which occurs in the secondary literature on the topic. So for example, at Amblyopia you wrote in the edit summary "Added a potential treatment for patients with mild amblyopia coupled with the appropriate peer review literature". This cites research by surgeons doing refractive eye surgery. The first obvious bias is that surgeons who earn their living doing procedures that patients may have to pay privately for (vs get through a health service or insurance) have an interest in publishing results that send more business their way. The second potential problem is that the results reflect the (good) practice of one clinic and may not be reproduced by other clinics. There may also be problems with a study due to bad design or small size, and where the conclusion perhaps is too enthusiastic.

As a tertiary source, an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia is expected to follow the secondary literature. What does the secondary literature on amblyopia say about refractive eye surgery? Does it say anything at all (yet)? Are there any clinical guidelines on amblyopia recommending when to try refractive eye surgery? Perhaps even (I don't know) the guidelines currently don't recommend it due to lack of evidence. Perhaps those guidelines need updating? We need to be patient sometimes.

Wrt the other badly cited material, there simply aren't good experienced editors around to fix up everything, so the general quality is often very low. Many articles could benefit from being thoroughly revised using secondary literature, rather than folk just adding new facts to the existing pile. -- Colin°^Talk 13:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Since multiple editors have contacted me about this:

Yes, I should not have used rollback.

Yes, the edits looked a bit spammy with a likely COI. While I didn't rule out a COI completely, the edits looked good enough that I didn't pursue it.

Yes, the sources were all borderline.

Yes, there's definitely much to salvage.

Yes, given the help that we've already received here, it would have been better to start a discussion here rather than removing all the edits. This Wikiproject is rather exceptional in responding to comments.

Again, thank you all for the assistance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate the input and discussion with everyone. I am an ophthalmologist and no doubt that if you put five doctors in a room you get 10 opinions. To make things even more complicated each physician has their own “interpretation” even of systematic reviews. For instance you can cite something written in the introduction of a systematic review (something that the paper did not even look into). Regarding the amblyopia article, great point, it is preliminary and therefore perhaps add that further studies are needed to confirm this treatment (or that it is debatable). Regarding LASIK I put in a bunch of more information about potential complications (which would actually make patients think twice before surgery). Which goes against my interest as a LASIK surgeon. I am happy to try to revamp the article and give tertiary references whenever possible but for some info that won’t be possible. I do think that very large studies with large amount of eyes should be considered legit,as long as words such as “may” or “can” etc... are used. Thoughts? Highqualitycontent (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Highqualitycontent for contributing and for the effort of discussing here as well! I've read the LASIK articles a while ago and I agree that they need extensive cleanup. In places, they might even use some WP:TNT. In other words, I suggest to first cut down what is blatantly against the guidelines, and then start adding more details. Starting a thousand small contentions on this or that detail supported or rejected by this or that trial is going to be much harder.

I want to address just another point: «situation where many of your medical entries (at least in ophthalmology) are severely outdated (>5 years)» is perfectly fine. An encyclopedia is not a repository or a summary of cutting edge research; being 5 years late is not much in the scale of things. We still have some history articles which were written in 1911 with a colonialist 19th century mindset. ;-) It's all a giant todo. Nemo 17:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Highqualitycontent, consider this: if you think the study was large enough to be important and influence recommended/typical practice, then someone else will do as well and sooner or later put it in print somewhere we can cite. The only method we have for measuring the weight of a primary study is to wait see how the secondary literature responds. I'm sorry this goes against your inclinations and seems to reject your expertise, but this is the model Wikipedia has adopted. Wrt adding "preliminary; further studies needed" caveat to the article, again we don't do that because (a) it may be just your opinion that this is preliminary rather than conclusive research and (b) pretty much all primary research papers conclude with a "further studies needed". So we follow an "if in doubt; leave it out" approach. -- Colin°^Talk 17:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)