Template:Did you know nominations/Childhood cancer


 * 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: rejected by Senra (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

Childhood cancer

 * ... that childhood cancer is responsible for about nearly 100,000 deaths per year?
 * Reviewed: Kubah

Created/expanded by Mikael Häggström (talk). Self nom at 21:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg This is a very US-centric article; I don't think it's above stub class in describing the worldwide situation. Moreover, two sections have no references. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added data from the UK too now. The two sections without references seem to be one with mainly internal links to related organizations on one hand, and an introduction to a topic which is dealt with in a separate article on the other. Therefore, as long as the other articles are of acceptable quality to remain in Wikipedia, I see no major problem in having these links. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't rely on other articles to supply the references for you. While they may be of decent quality (there is no guarantee on Wikipedia), DYK requires a minimum of one inline source per paragraph in the body of the article. In fact, if these wikilinked articles are of decent quality, they ought to have the sourcing you need for the paragraph in this article. As for your list of organizations, perhaps there is a secondary source that gives a similar list that you could cite? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference in each of these paragraphs now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tried to add the following early this morning but got caught out by the downtime.
 * BlueMoonset asked me to take another look at this. I recognise that this is an important topic that it's astonishing Wikipedia has lacked an article on till now, and that the article is somewhat improved from the last version I reviewed. However, I still think it is rather stubby, with a range of poorly organised sections and important areas entirely missing. It remains focused on the US in particular and a small selection of developed countries in general.
 * The addition of references to the two paragraphs is perfunctory. I don't think it matters much for the Organisations section, but the paragraph on developmental problems in children with cancer should either be referenced properly or removed entirely to a See also.
 * Personally I wouldn't be inclined to highlight this article, but if someone else chooses to, given that it's been rated as C-class by WikiProject Medicine, I won't object. The hook fact is referenced to a popular summary page of the major UK cancer charity, and has been rounded up from 96,000. It would be preferable to cite a better source; I don't currently have time to locate one, especially as most reputable sources quote mortality per million children. If it is run, the hook might be better as 'nearly' or 'almost 100,000' rather than 'about 100,000'. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'nearly' sounds better than 'about' in this case so I changed the hook to the former. Even if this article won't get nominated I appreciate the feedback. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article seems sufficiently globalized now, and it is adequately supplied with footnote references to sources. However, when I checked the source for the hook fact, I discovered that the sentence in the article is a verbatim copy of the sentence in the source. That's a copyright violation. Please go over the article and make sure that it is free of this kind of copying -- and does not include WP:Close paraphrasing. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've rephrased this sentence now. I went through the rest of the article, and the only "copy-pasting" or close paraphrasing are statements taken from a government source and can be regarded as noncopyright. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg That sentence is OK now (not ideal, but good enough). I see that there is some content here that is from the US government, and thus is PD-US, but I hasten to point out that we can't count that content toward the 1500-character minimum, as it isn't original to Wikipedia. Looking further, I do find more issues of the same sort. Example:
 * Article: In developed countries, around 80% of children with cancer survive, but in low resource settings this figure falls to 20% or even 10% in the world's poorest countries.
 * Source: in developed countries, around 80% of children with cancer survive, but in low resource settings this figure falls to 20% or even 10% in the world's poorest countries... --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to mention that source specifically, but anyhow it's from another government source, which appears to be regulated by UK open-government-licence. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. The article is going to need a statement indicating that it uses PD-US and UK open-government sources, with identification of the sources used and links to the UK open-government license. There are templates for that purpose, but I think in this case it would be best to craft a statement that combines contents from the various templates that otherwise would be needed. --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did find such a statement for the CDC reference. However, I didn't find any template for the UK reference right away, so I found it easier just to rephrase the statement. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good! --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg As earlier reviewers noted, the article still seems rather thin on content. It's not that the subject matter is obscure; for example, this source has a lot of information about reported incidences of childhood cancer internationally. The source is cited and used, but the information extracted from it seems largely to be limited to fairly high-level (summary) statements, and not the more detailed and nuanced content also found in the source. Although the article is plenty long enough for DYK, it truly isn't beyond stub class in the depth of its coverage of its topic. I'd give it a "pass" on length for DYK, but I'd be happier if it were beefed up a bit. I am still finding some passages that seem a bit too closely paraphrased from the sources. One example is the list of bullets under "Risk factors":
 * Source:
 * 1. Children often have different, and sometimes unique, exposures to environmental hazards from those of adults.
 * 2. Due to their dynamic developmental physiology children are often subjected to higher exposures to pollutants found in air, water and food. These exposures may be handled quite differently by an immature set of systems to the way they are dealt with in adults. Furthermore, the developmental component of a child’s physiology is changing: maturing, differentiating and growing in phases known as "developmental windows". These "critical windows of vulnerability" have no parallel in adult physiology and create unique risks for children exposed to hazards that can alter normal function and structure....
 * 4. ... they must rely on adults to protect them from toxic environmental agents.
 * Article:
 * Different, and sometimes unique, exposures to environmental hazards. Children must often rely on adults to protect them from toxic environmental agents.
 * Immature physiological systems to clear or metabolize environmental substances
 * The growth and development of children in phases known as "developmental windows" result in certain "critical windows of vulnerability".
 * I'd like the author to recheck this piece for close paraphrasing -- and at the same time, look for opportunities to beef up the content. I think that the addition of substantive content might help to eliminate the close paraphrasing; I've found that when I have several sources (even different pages from the same source) that all address the same point, it is much easier to craft original text than when I am relying on only one source. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notification just placed on author's talk page; hadn't been last week. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg No reply from author in over two weeks, and no activity on the article since then. Orlady's concern's unaddressed, so I think this should be closed as unsuccessful. Moswento talky 10:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. I've found the feedback here very useful for improving the article, but it has however reached a point where I don't put further up-beefing as a priority in the immediate future. Rather, I'm thinking of using the most recent feedback for preparing the article for next year's Childhood cancer day instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. I've found the feedback here very useful for improving the article, but it has however reached a point where I don't put further up-beefing as a priority in the immediate future. Rather, I'm thinking of using the most recent feedback for preparing the article for next year's Childhood cancer day instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)