Talk:Answers Research Journal

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that HIV has its origins in the Fall, according to one journal? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/George_Kunkel_(theatre_manager)
  • Comment: If preferred, the 'according to the journal' clause can be in the beginning.

Created by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: LGTM, tho I don't love the hook. Given that this is Psuedoscience territory, it might be best to err on the side of being a bit verbose.

How about ALT 1: ... that according to one creationist journal, HIV has its origins in the Fall?

Thoughts Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d? Sohom (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sohom Datta, Alt1 looks good to me! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Approved, per above. Sohom (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I offer an even more direct alternative hook? And Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, if you're not feeling this, you can strike it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that the inaugural article of one creationist journal claims that HIV goes back to the biblical Fall?

I prefer the Alt1 hook still. Alt2 just seems a bit wordy. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Answers Research Journal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 19:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I can review this. Initial indications are that it meets GA, but I will do more analysis this week. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, thank you very much for taking up this review. If you have feedback for me, I most likely won’t be able to respond until July 8th. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A basic point: I think the article is too aggressive in places and includes not-neutral words which are not needed, and might be considered as OR. A couple of examples with words that could be removed are:

• A 2009 article spuriously proposes
• His thesis, incorrectly

In both cases it could be argued that a source is needed for the word I have stricken out. Those were the most obvious, please go through and check, letting the sourced material tell the story -- which is clearly very strong. Please let me know when you are done Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I’m not the one who added “spuriously” and I agree it should be removed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

But I believe “incorrectly” is not OR. We always describe climate change denialism in such terms. The cited source verifies it as well: ” For example, in its “research journal” is this flat statement: [climate thesis].Simple, eh? Completely wrong, but simple. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: So besides those two examples, do you have any other concerns? I’m not seeing much instances of non-neutral language. Certainly, the reception is pretty negative but all those statements are attributed, so it complies with NPOV. Do you have objections to “not scientifically sound”; “unscientific”; “journal's objective is not scientific inquiry”? We have to remember that WP:FRINGE comes into play here. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I will go over it carefully tomorrow (or Monday). Ldm1954 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ldm1954. Have you had a chance to review it? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Finishing up the review as a Pass. The only slightly questionable point is 6a, images. The journal has graphic pages at the top of each article, many of which are from Wikimedia Commons so might be useable. Something to think about for later. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.