Template:Did you know nominations/Women's health

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Vanamonde (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Women's health[edit]

(
)
  • that... The World Health Organization (WHO) considers that an undue emphasis on reproductive health has been a major barrier to ensuring access to good quality health care for all women Source: WHO: "Some of the sociocultural factors that prevent women and girls to benefit from quality health services and attaining the best possible level of health include... an exclusive focus on women’s reproductive roles." Article: "The WHO considers that an undue emphasis on reproductive health has been a major barrier to ensuring access to good quality health care for all women."

Improved to Good Article status by Michael Goodyear (talk). Self-nominated at 17:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

  • The good news: Article was promoted to GA status on November 10, and nominated on the same day. I moved the nomination from the nomination list for Oct 10 to the one for Nov 10, when it was promoted to GA. Nominator has 2 previous nominations according to QPQ check, and so is not required to do a QPQ. Article is long enough, extensively cited (citation in lead is not required when same information is cited in body). Information is neutral. Spot checks did not find any copyvios. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • However, the proposed ALT was not ideally formatted (which I've fixed) and I propose ALT1 (below) to more clearly highlight the article title. Someone else should therefore recheck this. Hook lengths are both less than 200 characters. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that... the World Health Organization (WHO) considers that an undue emphasis on reproductive health has been a major barrier to ensuring that all women have access to good quality Women's health care. Source: WHO: "Some of the sociocultural factors that prevent women and girls to benefit from quality health services and attaining the best possible level of health include... an exclusive focus on women’s reproductive roles." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mary Mark Ockerbloom that this article meets the DYK criteria. Approving ALT1 as basically covering the same facts as the original hook, cited inline to a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've promoted this, because it meets all the criteria. Since we have a few days before it hits the main page, though, I'm wondering if we can come up with a hook variant (using the same fact) less full of academic verbiage. @Michael Goodyear, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, and Cwmhiraeth: thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Michael Goodyear: I've added bolding to the article name and changed "thinking about" to "focusing on" which is stronger, change back if you don't agree. With that change I prefer your ALT1b to the others. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 and ALT1a are at odds with the sources, which speak of "exclusive focus" being the problem, not "undue emphasis." ALT1b is better but still unclear. I worry that a hook of this kind will appear to denigrate reproductive health. I would ask for a new hook. Neutralitytalk 04:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't see any denigration of reproduction - that is a pretty prominent part of the article. But the problem is that as some researchers have put it - women are far more than "boobs and tubes", so that other aspects of their care get de-emphasised. Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't want to propose a hook because I'm also acting in an admin capacity here: but surely there is a way to avoid saying "women's health" twice? Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced it does say "women's health" twice? Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I like this a lot better, and this is precisely what I meant, so thank you. If the reviewers are cool with this, I'll swap it with the one in the queue. Vanamonde (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Michael Goodyear and Vanamonde93:: That's substantially better -- thank you. I would consider the following version:
We don't need the acronym ("WHO") since we only use the name once, I would just match the language used by the WHO, and I tightened it up at the end. Neutralitytalk 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What are folks' thoughts on ALT1d? Vanamonde (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think ALT1c is the best at this point; I've struck mine and throw my vote in support of Michael's new hook, with the possible proviso of removing ("WHO") as per comments above. I think ALT1c reads better than ALT1d: I prefer "focus on reproductive health alone" to quoting "exclusive focus". Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If there is consensus here for ALT1c, I will swap it with the one in prep shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Swapped in ALT1c. Closing. Vanamonde (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Women%27s_health&oldid=754361987"