Template:Did you know nominations/eggshell membrane

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 Allen3 talk 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Eggshell membrane[edit]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Peak Player (talk). Nominated by Oreo Priest (talk) at 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

  • for ALT1. Long enough. New enough (moved to main space on June 13). Well cited throughout. Neutral tone. I'm giving an AGF tick because although it has a number of citations in support of the hook and ALT1, I can't judge if the cited sources (e.g., Alive.com, Precision Nutrition and Alternative Medicine) are reliable sources. But at least one, [1], seems reliable, and supports the proposed hooks. Hybernator (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The ALT1 hooks reads like an ad to me; I don't think it should be used. Since this is a medical claim, I'd feel happier if a MEDRS person could review that sourcing (I've just asked one to stop by); AGF is meant for sources where we can't see the contents but the adding editor has, not for reliability questions about those we can see. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hybernator, do note that the last three sources are evidence that it's receiving hype, not of any specific medical facts or effectiveness. I think those sources (which would be wholly inappropriate for actual medical claims) are completely reasonable in this regard.
BlueMoonset, while I see why you think it might look like an ad, It's also a pithy way to say what it's supposed to do. If you think there's a succinct way to say what it is that doesn't seem like an ad, I welcome your input.
As for the substance of the medical claim, please note that the only claim put forward either in the article or the hook is "maybe". Two clinical trials, of varying quality, found that pain was reduced by patients who took it. Naturally, those two trials are far from definitively proving that it reduces joint pain, but two trials that found it reduces pain is at least enough evidence to say that "maybe" it does. If you think that the uncertainty of its status is insufficiently demonstrated by the single word 'may' in the hook, I invite your suggestions on how to improve the clarity in this case. Oreo Priest talk 12:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with BlueMoonset. The first ref says the membrane contains collagen, but doesn't say the product does anything. The second ref says the product is a possible remedy. The third and fourth are compromised as sources, being written by the manufacturers of the product and the people who were paid by the company to do the trials. The fifth ref is just about assessing pain and does not affect the hook. The sixth ref is another write-up of the trials by the same Kevin Ruff who co-wrote the other trial records. The last three refs, as Oreo Priest says, are advertisements or hype. So I don't believe that there is anything in any of the sources which could safely support the hook, which itself matches the hype but not the article. The article itself is objective, and doesn't say what the hook says. If we had a hook which said "blah has the objective of blah" (as in the article header) then that might work. --Storye book (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok. Two more ALTs:
  • I have struck the original hook and ALT1 in response to the above discussion about them looking like advertisements. I have also struck ALT3 on the same grounds. That leaves ALT2, which I believe is acceptable. It is short enough at 172 characters, and checks out online with citation #2. The positive bits of the initial review are taken on trust. Re the discussion above about the sources, I believe that they are OK insofar as their use in the article is concerned. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Not taking an overall position, but we need to be really careful with anything approaching a medical claim. Frankly I think it might be best to switch the hook to some other fun fact like
ALT4 ... that eggshell membrane is extracted from many of the 2 billion dozen eggshells produced annually at US egg-breaking facilities?

(I thought billion dozen sounded more eggish, but 24 billion would fine as well.) EEng (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you, EEng. ALT4 is great at first sight, but it relies on online citation #3 as a source, and that, if I understand correctly, is on the website of the company which manufactures the product. So the two billion dozen could be taken as hype, unfortunately - just about OK in the article, but not in a hook. I won't strike it, to give you a chance to back up ALT4, but I'll re-affirm ALT2 for the present. I don't think that ALT2 is a medical claim, as it just mentions an objective, not an achievement. --Storye book (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I was mostly offering ALT4 as a way out of the medical dilemma. If you're comfortable with the others I'm OK. EEng (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2 still good to go (ALT4 still under discussion). --Storye book (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it's important that an article about a dietary supplement (even if its merits are dubious) should not shy away from answering the most important question: why do people take it at all (again, regardless of whether or not it's borne out by logic or science)? ALT 4 just says that eggshells have membranes and there are a lot of them. Much more interesting (IMO) is that people deliberately take them as a way to (they think) improve their health. I am strongly in favour of ALT 2 over ALT 4 for this reason. Oreo Priest talk 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You're talking about the article. I'm only talking about the hook. The hook isn't supposed to answer a question, but more pose one, and for sure, on a touchy issue like a medical claim, it shouldn't raise a question it can't itself answer (e.g. by implying it might be useful for joints or whatever, when space makes it impossible for it to treat that adequately). That's why I was suggesting ALT4 -- and the article can talk about the medical claims. But, again, I will defer to the wisdom of others. EEng (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As there's no full-on objection to ALT4, I'll put it forward for admin to decide. --Storye book (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good to go with ALT2 or ALT4. --Storye book (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/eggshell_membrane&oldid=808369044"