Template:Did you know nominations/Paraptosis


 * 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 10:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Paraptosis

 * Symbol question.svg ... that cancer cells can die from paraptosis after treatment with γ-Tocotrienol?
 * Reviewed: Henry Scholberg

Created by Jhayes21 (talk), Lisawisa (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 11:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg At first glance, there are numerous cleanup tags and empty sections in the article - these issues need to be fixed before the article is ready for the front page, assuming that it fulfils other DYK criteria. 97198 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now there are no empty sections and cleanup tags are gone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I've delved into the article a bit, and came away thinking that there are still some serious problems with it. I don't know the science, but I am not convinced that this article is presenting it appropriately. Examples of my concerns:
 * Several research results that were reported in a single primary source scientific paper are reported as if they were objective fact (that is, the article uses language like "... has been shown to... " rather than describing the research finding as a single research report). Note that research findings aren't "fact" until other investigators have replicated the findings and accepted them. Since this article discusses potential implications for cancer treatment, we need to be mindful of WP:MEDRS.
 * Toned down slightly Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Somewhere on a spectrum created by two of the five major cell death types, apoptosis and necrosis, lies paraptosis..." looked to me like it might have been closely paraphrased from a source, so I checked the cited source. I didn't find anything like that statement in the source, but I also don't find support for the statement in the article (the source doesn't suggest anything about a spectrum -- rather, my reading indicates that it describes these as three distinct types of cell death).
 * I removed this but I did find mention in a completely independent masters thesis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph under "Pathway" contained a direct quote from the source (which I can read online) that misquoted the source. (I corrected that.) Also, the passage in that paragraph that states "Perhaps consequentially then it is no surprise that..." may be the contributor's opinion or original research, as the cited source doesn't seem to suggest that "consequence" or absence of surprise.
 * Stripped off the OR fluff. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Physiological systems" subsection consists of only three words; this looks like it might be a placeholder for something to be written later.
 * Removed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The last sentence under "Morphology" is not a complete sentence. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rewritten Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thanks for the improvements. I still have concern that the article is heavily based on primary sources (that is, initial papers describing the findings of one study) rather than review articles and similar secondary sources. Excellent secondary sources do exist; I found several free online review articles and a free online book chapter: ; ; "Apoptosis and Cell Death", by Pothana Saikumar and Manjeri A. Venkatachalam, chapter 4 of a 2009 book discusses paraptosis as one of the different types of cell death; this review article with full text free online has only one paragraph on paraptosis, but the content could add value to this article;  is a review article on types of cell death published before paraptosis was described, but it provides some good background. This page may also be worthwhile. Ideally, the article creators would consider using some of these sources, or others like them.
 * Finally, the proposed hook could be misinterpreted as medical advice. Because of that, and because it's based on a single research paper, I don't think we should be using it on the main page. I suggest rewording it so that it doesn't focus on that one chemical. There is a lot more citation support for the following variant hook:
 * ALT1 ... that cancer cells can die from paraptosis after treatment with certain anti-cancer substances? --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That ALT1 hook does sound suitable, so I am happy if that is used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  I'm ready to pass this article, with ALT1, but because I suggested the hook, I think we need another reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 hook is in the article and properly sourced. The rest of the review approval per Orlady. Struck the original hook as unapproved per Orlady's concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)