Jump to content

Talk:Sophie Jamal/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 14:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This looks interesting; I'll snag it. ♠PMC(talk) 14:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "she additionally completed a Ph.D." is a little awkward. Maybe "Additionally, she completed" Or "she also completed"? Not a hill I'll die on.
  • Willing to be convinced otherwise, but not sure the end of para 1 after her educational achievements is the right spot for her childhood issues. I think it might be better if it were moved before that, or maybe moved down into the "Medical licensing" section, since it was used as justification for her to get her license back
    Reworded the sentence a bit, to focus on her upbringing more than the psychological consequences of it, but I don't quite think moving it works. Earlier poses the problem that there isn't really much earlier to point at, while omitting it makes it not all that much of an early-life section at all. Vaticidalprophet 14:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CMAJ article says she was not just staff at the hospital but was the "head of endocrinology and director of osteoporosis research"; I think that detail should be in the article
    Fixed. Vaticidalprophet 10:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing for the sentence that starts "She was recognized as an expert..." is a little thin. I don't think a single ref to her own newspaper column is sufficient to cover the rest of what it says.
    Hm. I feel like I can duplicate a ref from elsewhere to cover this? There's definitely a sense I get from sources that she was pretty strongly recognizable in both mainstream and medical stuff. Vaticidalprophet 10:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be fine, I just don't think it should only hinge on a ref to her own column. I don't even think much rewording is really necessary, you just have to plop some refs in. ♠PMC(talk) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, newspapers.com saved my ass here. I was able to find a couple more good examples of community/general population expert-recognition, and reworded the sentence a bit to describe the broader range of how that presented. Vaticidalprophet 03:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drawing the attention of interested parties" this feels redundant; if you're paying attention you're interested by default, I would think
    This was a rewording by someone else; the original was 'luminaries', which on the one hand was a bit POV, but on the other hand the purpose was to highlight that her work was being looked at by Big Names. Is there a middle ground? Vaticidalprophet 08:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you could get away with something like "the attention of major medical establishments such as...X Y Z"; that implies Big Name interest without being too POV about it. ♠PMC(talk) 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Vaticidalprophet 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Misconduct section could stand to be a little more clear/detailed about the circumstances. I thought I understood the situation when I read the article, but after reading the CPSO/CMAJ sources, I felt confused about what's in the article. Based on the CPSO/CMAJ sources, it looks like the fraud was discovered in 2014 during the follow-up study (which CPSO calls the "NABT Study"), which re-analysed data from the 2011 JAMA study, but the article's not quite explicit about that. Also we should mention that the fraud itself covers 3 studies - the JAMA, the rejected Sclerostin study, and the uncompleted NABT study.
    This and the newspaper column thing are the only issues that remain, otherwise we're basically good to go here. ♠PMC(talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified all those slightly, how is it looking? Vaticidalprophet 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect, I think that's more clear. Looks like we're all set to go here! ♠PMC(talk) 07:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of para 1 in that section is a little close to the original but also slightly misstates things by pluralizing "computers" and "facilities" - the original uses the singular for both
    The sentence is a little rejiggered, though mostly with an eye to fixing the singular/plural issue. Nonetheless, hope the paraphrasing is a bit further away too. Vaticidalprophet 21:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. ♠PMC(talk) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For para 3, I think the sources can support providing a little more detail about the other papers. Retraction Watch gives publication years and notes that there were data analysis issues for both, and I thought it was of interest that all authors but Jamal requested retraction in both cases.
    Just noticed I forgot to tell you I'd elaborated on these as well. Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this is good. ♠PMC(talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all for now. As usual, I'm open to discussion about suggested changes. Article is verifiable with solid sources & appropriate citations & has no CV/para issues, adheres to NPOV, no stability issues. No images of the subject, understandably, so criteria 6 doesn't apply. ♠PMC(talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a pass! Another solid piece of weird and interesting work, Vati. ♠PMC(talk) 07:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]