Template:Did you know nominations/Occupational Exposure Banding
- 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 ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Occupational exposure banding[edit]
- ... that occupational exposure banding can quickly and accurately assign chemicals into specific hazard categories when quantitative occupational exposure limits are not available?
- Source: “For many chemicals, data are too limited to derive a health-based OEL with the level of confidence desired... One technique, with a long history of successful application in the pharmaceutical industry, is hazard or occupational exposure banding.” [1], p. 29
Moved to mainspace by Pranavrane23 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC).
- # New: moved to mainspace 18 April 2017;
- # Article length: plenty good, weighs in at >900 words;
- #It is indeed neutral;
- #Inline citations: H'mmm- it's missing a couple, unfortunately, in the last two sections;
- #Copyvios: Earwig gives us 'Violation Unlikely'- some minor phrases carry over.
- #Hook length / links / bolding = OK; The content may well be interesting to a broad range of people; and it is accurately cited.
- #BLP concerns are non-applicable.
-just the minor matter of improving the citations in the final and penultimate paragraphs. On edit: I have just found a further issue, that the actual article title is in sentence case, whereas this nomination uses capitalised initials. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm not sure what you mean–the last two sections are well referenced. Also, the capitalization on the nomination page is immaterial to the article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): That's most odd; I must've somehow been looking at a cached page. No, the capitalization is only relevant in the context of the original author's talk page DYK template not linking correctly to here. Also, the 'broad range of people' is probably worth reconsidering. PS, your ping didn't work. Cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- So are there any improvements that need to be made? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Pinging. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). The only other point might be whether it is interesting to a 'broad range' of readers. It's pretty specialist; although undoubtedly interesting to those of us at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ;) remember, it is the WP:READER we must consider. What do you think? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 05:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, everybody should be concerned about how to determine the safety of common chemicals. Perhaps one of these two is more accessible to laymen? @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Pranavrane23: What do you think? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that when there are not enough data to determine a quantitative exposure limit for a chemical, exposure banding can provide a reliable approximation?
- ALT2: ... that occupational exposure banding can provide a reliable approximation of a safe exposure level for potentially hazardous and unregulated chemicals in the workplace?
- Well, everybody should be concerned about how to determine the safety of common chemicals. Perhaps one of these two is more accessible to laymen? @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Pranavrane23: What do you think? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). The only other point might be whether it is interesting to a 'broad range' of readers. It's pretty specialist; although undoubtedly interesting to those of us at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ;) remember, it is the WP:READER we must consider. What do you think? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 05:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): That's most odd; I must've somehow been looking at a cached page. No, the capitalization is only relevant in the context of the original author's talk page DYK template not linking correctly to here. Also, the 'broad range of people' is probably worth reconsidering. PS, your ping didn't work. Cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm not sure what you mean–the last two sections are well referenced. Also, the capitalization on the nomination page is immaterial to the article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): They are both excellent, they all
I do apologise for claiming to speak for our readers above, it was rather arrogant of me. I didn't mean it to sound like that, but on rereading it, I think it does. After all, I'm probably underestimating the quality of our WP:READERS! Sorry about that, and for holding this up. Anyway, all is good. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
