- 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 14:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jon Palfreman edit
- ... that science journalist Jon Palfreman (pictured) was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease while researching his book on the subject?
- ALT1:... that science writer, director and producer Jon Palfreman (pictured) considers global warming "the mother of all environmental debates"?
- Comment: Suggestions for more pithy hooks welcome.
Created by SojoQ (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC).
The image on commons is said to be taken by Jon but the rights are assigned to a relative? just here. Can we get the image fixed on commons? The same article says that he was diagnosed four years before the book was published? I tried to look at the ref from the hook but there are three refs given for the sentence about the timing of the diagnosis but the one I tried didnt mention that fact. We need to sort this out as the main hook is much better than alt1. (I think global warming is well known to be an important debate) Victuallers (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and comments. The "Review Nonfiction". Publisher's Weekly. July 6, 2015. pp. 57–58 article (mentioned in the Brain Storms section of the page) specifically states that Palfreman was diagnosed with Parkinson's while researching the book (Brain Storms). Sorry, I don't have a link, but I do have the article. I believe the NYT article "The Bright Side of Parkinson's" mentions he was diagnosed in 2011, but I don't believe it specifically states he was diagnosed while researching Brain Storms. I can check. Palfreman co-wrote "The Case of the Frozen Addicts" in 1995, which also has a subject of Parkinson's. Maybe the hook needs to be rewritten for clarity? Sorry, hooks aren't my strong point, so if there are other ideas, I'm not tied to anything I've suggested. I'm not sure about the image. I can see if I can find more information. SojoQ (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Afterthought - Could you delete the word "newest"? I'm guessing he has only written the one book on this subject. Victuallers (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was able to track down the image copyright holder as indicated in the previously published article. An email/letter of permission should be forthcoming (to by sent directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the copyright holder). SojoQ (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Victuallers:It looks like the permission for the image went through (ticket #2015082710027165). Please let me know if there are any other concerns about the page that need addressing. SojoQ (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- As a follow up to the Bright Sides article, Palfreman mentions in it he was diagnosed "four years ago", but doesn't state specifically that he was diagnosed with the disease while researching his book Brain Storms. SojoQ (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I've reworded the sentence slightly and moved the citation for the Publisher's Weekly article (for the first hook) closer to the claim, if that helps any. If not, please let me know. SojoQ (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: Just a reminder that this review is still outstanding. Prioryman (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oops sorry for the delay but I'm slowing my editting at present. The article as written is well written and long enough,the image is free via OTRS, and the hook is OK if not a bit too obvious. There are few people left who have alternative views to his. The prime hook is struck as its a strong claim and the nominator has not offered a strong 3rd party view to support it. My main issue is neutrality and what the article describes apart from the bio. The article has a good biography followed by several mini-articles about Palfreyman's work which appear to have been universally received as wonderful. The quotes are too numerous and IMO state the obvious. Can I suggest that the articles about his works should be reduced to a sentence or two and that some alternative views should be introduced about his work. I found this after some quick searches including phrases like bias and criticism. Palfreyman is I believe employed as an advocate. If another editor care to continue this review then feel free as I am busy with alternative work at present, but I will return. Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: Just a reminder that this review is still outstanding. Prioryman (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions. I will revisit this page and see what improvements can be made. Any suggestions for hooks are welcome. SojoQ (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I do have one question. I'm not tied to the first hook and plan to offer alternatives, but the Publishers Weekly article used for the citation states specifically in a review of Palfreman's "Brain Storms" book: "Palfreman, who was diagnosed with the disease during his research, investigates drug therapies, such as the routine L-dopa therapy initiated in the 1960s and still used frequently today, and experimental drugs such as NPT088, which has yet to be approved by the FDA". The citation doesn't have a URL on the page, but I put the reference right after the statement. Is Publishers Weekly not considered a reliable third party? SojoQ (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Victuallers:It looks like the permission for the image went through (ticket #2015082710027165). Please let me know if there are any other concerns about the page that need addressing. SojoQ (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I've reread the page with the reviewer's suggestions in mind and, before I go in a change a whole lot, I do have some questions.
In regards to neutrality. I think there is a fine line between adding criticism about Palfreman (the man) and that of his work. Palfreman's topics may cause controversy (climate change, GMO foods, facilitated communication, etc. are or were all hot-bed topics), but according to the articles I've read, Palfreman, himself is known for and has won awards for science journalism--some of which were given to him by his peers. Until recently, he taught journalism ethics at UOregon. If there were criticisms of Palfreman specifically, I would have included them.
I'm not opposed to adding criticisms to the page, but the critiques I have read seem to have more to do with specific Nova or Frontline documentaries (and whether someone agreed with the topic or not) than of Palfreman as a science journalist. Perhaps the documentaries and books could/should be made stand-alone articles at some point --a project for someone else--(with a "main article" link on Palfreman's page). For now, though, am I to reduce the mini-articles to one or two sentences or expand the sections to add in criticisms about the topics Palfreman's explored for PBS? And, if I am to expand discussion of the topics, will this take attention away from Palfreman and direct the attention to the books and/or documentaries that could and, perhaps, should be handled on separate pages? I'm willing to address these issues and would appreciate some clarification and feedback.
Also, the comments Palfreman made about computers, climate change and other topics may seem mundane by today's standards, but, at least in my view, they are interesting because he was, arguably, ahead of his time in coming to those conclusions. For example, realizing that the computer was a "medium" and not just a machine may seem obvious today, but it was a big deal back in 1992. Perhaps the hooks need to reflect the time these things were said and/or discovered. Like I've stated, I'm not tied to any of the hooks I've offered and would appreciate suggestions. SojoQ (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I was able to easily find pw's article online. Also, we are to assume good faith in offline or foreign language sources. It's long enough, was new at the time, neutral, well cited, no copyvio issues. QPQ not needed. I like the first one better, and given that it's cited, and even if I couldn't find the online source I'd just assume good faith in the matter, this passes with the original hook, with the second hook also optional if the preparer prefers it for some unknown darkly twisted reason. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. Personally, I like the first hook better. I find it interesting that Palfreman co-wrote a book about Parkinson's early in his career, produced two documentaries about it, and then was diagnosed with Parkinson's while researching his latest book. Please use the first hook. SojoQ (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)