Talk:National Institute for Health and Care Research

Edit request

Dear All,

As a Wikimedian in residence at the NIHR, I would like to rewrite and expand this article. Please see my proposed draft and let me know if it's okay to make these changes.

Best wishes, Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Adam and thanks for your contributions. I don't know enough about the topic and don't have time to review it right now, but as you have mentioned that you're at the NIHR, have you read WP:COI and or WP:COIE? It could take a while to get enough editors to gain consensus over the holidays, but it looks as if you have expanded what is there already and added more citations, which is (almost!) always a good thing. The main thing is to declare your COI in one of the ways suggested on those pages, and then await comments from at least a couple of editors. I'll try to come back to it ASAP. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR), I like what you have proposed. A few comments or follow-up questions (I know some of these things may exist in the current article but removal may enhance the overall quality and neutrality of the article, and I was focused on looking at your draft specifically).

• Per Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements, I would recommend removing Draft:National_Institute_for_Health_Research#Mission and the bullet points in Draft:National_Institute_for_Health_Research#Research_schools
• In a somewhat similar vein, the line "In June 2021 NIHR published Best Research for Best Health: The Next Chapter.[8] This document outlined the operational priorities for NIHR and built on the 2006 Best Research for Best Health strategy." seems vague and promotional. What exactly was changed by this?
• For Draft:National_Institute_for_Health_Research#Notable_discoveries_and_developments, would you be able to provide third party sources associating the NIHR with these discoveries?
• Draft:National_Institute_for_Health_Research#Research_programmes seems a little wordy and vague (e.g. the programmes give researchers from England, who work in all areas of healthcare, access to funding to undertake clinical and applied health and social care research which is focused on priority areas and topics.) Would it make sense to merge this section and the research schools section with "Infrastructure"?
• In the Career development section, what exactly does the following sentence mean? The NIHR Academy was launched in October 2018 to "future-proof the UK research workforce". Then the third sentence in the paragraph has some more specifics about what the Academy accomplishes. I think some of the fluff here could be trimmed to focus on the facts
• To help reviewers better understand proposed changes from the current article, could you specifically list out information in the current article that would be removed from the current article version? It looks like there are a few things, but I could be mistaken. Just want to make sure nothing useful is lost in the changes.
• Spencer^T•C 23:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spencer, Thanks for the recommendations, they helped a lot. I think I've implemented all of them more or less, have a look. I've also restored the cut parts you mentioned so now it's only addition and rewriting. Let me know how it is. --Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR), it seems that there were some issues with copyright violations with some of the changes, with material from copyrighted sources copied and pasted into the draft. I may have missed this in other sections of the article-- are there any other sections that need to be removed/re-written to comply with the copyright policy? Spencer^T•C 05:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer: Yes, I didn't rephrase that part enough. I think there aren't any other problematic sections. --Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) Okay final comments from me: 1. would recommend removing "Areas of focus" section since without clarification or more detail as to what exactly this is, it doesn't add much to the article. 2. Similar to the bullet point "NIHR was one of the developers of the UK Standards for Public Involvement" under "Notable discoveries and developments" (What are UK Standards for Public Involvement?) 3. Is there an outside ref for the claim "Demonstrated that a blood test can be used to better diagnose pre-eclampsia"? PlGF testing is rarely used in clinical practice (at least in the US), so this seems more of a hopeful claim for future impact rather than a clearly demonstrated groundbreaking medical discovery. Probably worth removing IMO. 4. Throughout, there are a ton of cites to the NIHR themselves, rather than third party sources (e.g. refs 2, 5, 9, 19, 20, 22, 25-28, 30, 36-38, 41, 46-51, 53-55, 58; NIHR evidence seems to be more press releases as well). While not everything needs a non-NIHR citation, I think having third party references would make the article much stronger and more neutral. 5. In the "Research schools" section, "The three schools take part in developing evidence for practice, building research capacity and awareness in their respective sectors" is vague and seems promotional in nature. What exactly does this sentence mean? 6. I added one "citation needed" tag. With these changes, should be good to go; give me a ping afterward and I'll do my best to give it another look soon. Best, Spencer^T•C 16:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer: Thanks again. I've made the suggested changes, let me know if it's good to go. --Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) You may proceed with the changes. I think the referencing to outside sources still needs work, but as a whole the article is in much better condition with these changes than at present. Spencer^T•C 15:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)