Talk:Pure, White and Deadly

NPOV and MEDRS
, I think before going ahead with a DYK nom, the article would need to be adjusted for NPOV and MEDRS. For example, sentences such as "In later years, Yudkin's observations came to be accepted." What exactly has been accepted and by whom? The whole article will need to be inspected for issues like that, bearing in mind that we need MEDRS-compliant sources for health claims. SarahSV (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. I felt that Yudkin's work has been seen to be so significant, that the major expansion recently, in which you have played a significant part, provided an opportunity to bring this to a wider audience. Because the DYK requirements are that it is a new or substantially updated article within the last week, that is a very small window of opportunity. It doesn't need to be a GA to qualify and I guess that we could remove unsourced claims if a mention at DYK is important. Interestingly Rule D2 allows a summary of the book contents to be acceptable without sources and I have argued that much of what is currently unsourced is indeed a summary of the book. It would be great to get it to a GA but I guess that would be a great deal of work . I could add very little to that . My copy of the book is in the UK and I am currently in New Zealand with very little access to academic sources. We may have to let the DYK nomination lapse.  Velella  Velella Talk  03:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Now that you've created the nomination, I think it can be placed on hold until it's ready. You should check that because I'm not a DYK regular, but that's my understanding. It's usually true that the synopsis doesn't need sources, but it should be sourced to the book and worded carefully to make sure the article is saying that this is Yudkin's view. If you need sources behind a paywall, by the way, you can ask for them at WP:RX. SarahSV (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)