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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
... that German author Natalie Grams set out to write a scientific defense of homeopathy, but instead discontinued her homeopathic practice and wrote a book called Homeopathy Reconsidered? Source: "What the authors [of The Homeopathy Lie] claimed shook me so badly that I wanted to write a rebuttal... I found myself compelled to question all the criticism and to read the studies... I wrote to [my patients] and explained that my book project had taken a different direction, and that I could no longer offer anything which I could not stand behind." (It was my Life's Dream) (German-language interview)
ALT1:... that German author and anti-homeopathy campaigner Natalie Grams advocates "better medicine", in which mainstream health systems adopt elements of alternative medicine's focused attention to patients? Source: "The practical part of homeopathy, that of attentiveness to the patient, is unbelievably valuable. We must carry this over into everyday medical and clinical life — but without the magic part involving succussion and potentization." (Science is a Method, not a Worldview) (German-language interview))
ALT2:... that German author and physician Natalie Grams wants health systems to adopt a key aspect of homeopathy — elevated attentiveness to patients — but not its scientifically implausible theory of action? Source: "The practical part of homeopathy, that of attentiveness to the patient, is unbelievably valuable. We must carry this over into everyday medical and clinical life — but without the magic part involving succussion and potentization." (Science is a Method, not a Worldview) (German-language interview))
Other problems: - As this is a WP:BLP, special care is needed for in-line citations. I've marked the places where these are needed.
Hook eligibility:
Cited: - Citation doesn't support quote of being a "prominent expert critic." Needs additional citation.
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Thank you for your nomination! Article translated from de:Natalie Grams, which counts as a new article. Article created January 18th 2018, nominated January 21st 2018. Length is good. C class. Needs more in-line citations. Article has at least 1 citation/paragraph and maintains a neutral opinion. Per Earwig's Copyvio Detector, 2.9% confidence. Upon manual inspection, noted language difference. On repeat Copyvio check (in Deutsch), 20% confidence. Appears to be close paraphrasing, but difficult to rephrase otherwise. Evaluated ALT0: hook is mostly supported by source (German translated via Google Translate), but claim of prominent expert critic needs to be cited, hook is interesting, and 187 characters (<200). No pictures used. QPQ acceptable (signed nominator's previously unsigned comment). ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 06:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Biochemistry&Love: Thank you for the thorough review. I've updated ALT0 to eliminate the claim not supported by the quoted source, and also tweaked the translation of the source quote to clarify temporal nuance of its meaning. I look forward to your further input. Poorlyglot (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Further update: I've also addressed your CN tags in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poorlyglot (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Overall: You're quite welcome! Thank you for making the necessary changes. Per author's updates, the nomination is now in compliance. Approved! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- As this is a WP:BLP, special care is needed for in-line citations. I've marked the places where these are needed.
Thank you for your nomination! Article translated from de:Natalie Grams, which counts as a new article. Article created January 18th 2018, nominated January 21st 2018. Length is good. C class. Needs more in-line citations. Article has at least 1 citation/paragraph and maintains a neutral opinion. Per Earwig's Copyvio Detector, 2.9% confidence. Upon manual inspection, noted language difference. On repeat Copyvio check (in Deutsch), 20% confidence. Appears to be close paraphrasing, but difficult to rephrase otherwise. Evaluated ALT0: hook is mostly supported by source (German translated via Google Translate), but claim of prominent expert critic needs to be cited, hook is interesting, and 187 characters (<200). No pictures used. QPQ acceptable (signed nominator's previously unsigned comment). ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 06:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! Thank you for making the necessary changes. Per author's updates, the nomination is now in compliance. Approved! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)