Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Martin (ophthalmologist)

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

The result was: promoted by BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Keith Martin (ophthalmologist)[edit]

(
)

retinal cell in the jet from the printer nozzle

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self nominated at 18:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Article is new and long enogh, written in neutral tone, nice hook, no copyvio detected, QPQ done, hook checked with the BBC source but the image is a derivative work.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Skr15081997: Thanks for the review but I am not understanding your objection to the image. It appeared in a paper of Prof. Martin's which states that "Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence.". As this is our usual free content licence and the authors have been attributed, this seems ok. Andrew (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Good to go now, the image issue has been resolved.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not so fast, please. I'm having a few minor issues here. First of all, I find the image to be totally unclear, even with the caption from the article, so perhaps this should run without that. (Besides, it's not the printing itself that's illustrated here, since it's an ink drop in mid-air.) More to the point of the article, this is an extraordinarily thinly referenced BLP. All the relevant biographical information comes from his secondary school's website. There really is only one reliable source cited in the article, that BBC article--I'm not counting the ShortList article, since it's not clear what that verifies and I wouldn't easily accept a men's magazine for scientific matters. Also, that he's the first such professor at Cambridge is not verified anywhere in our article. So, I think we have a potentially exciting front page article and the hook is very attractive, but I do not think that the article is quite ready--not without more and more reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Attempt to kick this can a little further along the road ... Points: (1) Sorry but the hook is just not true. According to the article, Martin cultured (grew) eye cells; he didn't photograph them. He did use an inkjet nozzle; not for photography but for its facility to spray stuff, and he needed to spray stuff as part of the culture process. So we need a new hook; perhaps one that says he used a piezoelectric inkjet nozzle to spray eye cells (pictured) before culturing them? (2) The image shows spraying, not printing, so it would fit a hook similar to my suggested one. (3) The text content of the Armagh school website is obviously produced by teachers or professionals under the control of teachers; the extreme formality and high quality is evidence that the site is not produced by e.g. schoolkids. School teachers in Ireland are professionals who are trained and qualified to a standard equivalent to any other academic professional, therefore that site is an authoritative third party source for this biography. (4) The "first professor" statement is sourced authoritatively in citation #3, and this is correctly mentioned as "new chair" in the article. Conclusion: This article is sufficiently well-referenced for DYK. It would not be helpful to delay this nom by looking for GA standards here. I have struck the original hook because Martin did not print; he cultured. All we need now is a better hook. --Storye book (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Storye book for his comments. I agree that the sources seem sufficiently respectable. I'm not understanding the difficulty with the word "printing" though. The original paper was called Adult rat retinal ganglion cells and glia can be printed by piezoelectric inkjet printing and the BBC reported this saying, "Scientists say they have been able to successfully print new eye cells that could be used to treat sight loss." I find that we have an article on the general technique — bio-printing — and I'll link that in now. Does that help clarify the process? Andrew (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Andrew, for your explanation. I'm surprised but glad to hear that the hook is true - though there was nothing in the article to say it (thank you for the link - it says it now in the header). If it is as you say in the external links, then it ought to be repeated in the text of the article (not just in the header), and explained - maybe in the second paragraph of the career section? --Storye book (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The hook unconventionally has the subject referred to by a honorific. Suggest the hook revised to state his name:
  • ALT1 checks out online with citations #5 and #6. All other issues resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Keith_Martin_(ophthalmologist)&oldid=880660307"