- 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 Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Statcheck
edit- ... that in 2016, a researcher used the software program Statcheck to scan over 50,000 peer-reviewed psychology articles for statistical errors, and then controversially posted the results on PubPeer? Source: Nature: "Chris Hartgerink...moved the focus from the literature in general to specific papers. He set statcheck to work on more than 50,000 papers, and posted its reports on PubPeer, an online forum in which scientists often dispute papers. That has prompted a sometimes testy debate about how such tools should be used."
- ALT1:... that the R software program Statcheck was developed by Dutch academics Michèle Nuijten and Sacha Epskamp to detect statistical errors in peer-reviewed psychology articles? Source: PsychOpen: "Statcheck, developed by Sacha Epskamp and Michèle B. Nuijten, is a tool that searches for specific, often crucial, statistical results in research papers (p-values), recalculates them, and determines whether they are consistent with the reported values."
- Reviewed: Masterpiece (Basshunter song)
Created by IntoThinAir (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- ALT1 hook is fine. The initial hook could be trimmed (don't need to name the university) as to be able to add in a result of that cataloging. I see in sources (Vox's) a 13% figure, but that appears to apply to the original work done in developing Statcheck. alternatively, you could have a hook to discuss the controversial nature of the 50,000 paper scan (which is also in sources). A quick check online doesn't give me anything easily that could be used to improve that first hook, but I might not have access to the right sources for that.
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
I leave it it up to the author as to which hook to use: alt1 is read to go, the original hooks needs something with a bit more grab. One other issue, outside bounds of DYK , is that I would look for in future development are positive pieces about StatCheck. I can understand the immediate concern of those researchers with their papers flagged, but I would anticipate that because its gotten attention, there are positive things that Statcheck is doing for that community Masem (t) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have reworded the first hook a bit and added a new source to support the new hook, as well as a source that I embarrassingly left out when I originally added the ALT1 hook. I would prefer the new original hook that I reworded just now, but I am fine with either one. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
on the original hook. Explaining that it was controversial should be enough to make it interesting ("why would anyone be against such a collection?" leads to investigating further.) --Masem (t) 21:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@IntoThinAir: From looking at the article, it seems to me that it was not doing the research that was controversial but that posting the results on a public forum was, so I think ALT0 needs rephrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I have modified the ALT0 hook to try to address this issue. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- That meets my objections. Perhaps @Masem: can formally approve the revised hook with a tick? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I have modified the ALT0 hook to try to address this issue. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Approving the new version of ALT0 and restoring tick, based on Masem's original review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have reworded the first hook a bit and added a new source to support the new hook, as well as a source that I embarrassingly left out when I originally added the ALT1 hook. I would prefer the new original hook that I reworded just now, but I am fine with either one. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
