Template:Did you know nominations/BGR-34


 * 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

BGR-34

 * ...that BGR-34 has been described as both a "breakthrough-drug" and as a "populistic and market driven propaganda"? Source:
 * Reviewed: Rejected 2, worked on 1 and accepted 1. Can't be bothered to look for diffs.
 * Comment:

Created by Winged Blades of Godric (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg It'd be nice if the direct quotations used here were in the article.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  10:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * -✅ :-) &#x222F; WBG converse 10:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright / close paraphrasing issues. I don't like the proposed hook, the second half of which seems ungrammatical (you can't really describe a drug as "a propoganda"). Could you suggest something else? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks:-) Will think of one, shortly. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Shortly turned into almost a month in this case. Please suggest a new hook, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you advice some hook? Thought a lot but umm....... &#x222F; WBG converse 18:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the fringiness of the article subject, perhaps a hook regarding its negative reception could work? Also the article currently has a "clarification needed" tag that needs to be addressed. I'll also leave a message at WP:FTN on whether or not the article is fine as it is or if it needs to be edited some more; we wouldn't want pseudoscience promotion on the front page, would we? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is probably entirely negative in tone. Not sure about how it can seem promotional to any reader. If anything, it debunks these pseudoscience BS.
 * Posted over FTN:-)
 * And, I too feel that the hook ought contrast it's initial hype with the blatantly negative reception. But, it's only my 3rd/4th DYK and I am a bit perplexed as to finding a good hook. I will appreciate any help. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And, I too feel that the hook ought contrast it's initial hype with the blatantly negative reception. But, it's only my 3rd/4th DYK and I am a bit perplexed as to finding a good hook. I will appreciate any help. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And, I too feel that the hook ought contrast it's initial hype with the blatantly negative reception. But, it's only my 3rd/4th DYK and I am a bit perplexed as to finding a good hook. I will appreciate any help. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This quackery isn't seriously going to find its way onto the front page is it? Come on wikipedians, we are meant to aspire to be a serious & reputable publication. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted, though I disagree. A few days back we were having a quackery BLP, blatantly positive in tone (which shall be avoided at cost). If homeopathy does come to meet GA, I don't see why some appropriate hook can't feature it on main page. Anyways, pulling. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are withdrawing this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. Some things are not meant for DYK:-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)