Template:Did you know nominations/Vanderbilt exoskeleton
- The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Lack of activity
Vanderbilt exoskeleton
edit... that American paraplegics are now learning to walk again by wearing a robotic exoskeleton?
- Reviewed: Gambler's Lament
Created/expanded by Michaelmas1957 (talk). Self nom at 18:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough. I am satisfied with the sourcing, it being difficult to pin the hook down to a single sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Pulled from the main page for referencing issues. As it was only run for a little over an hour, I think this may be worth trying to fix. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed the hook to something more clearly supported by the article's sources – do you think this might work? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that Vanderbilt University has built a robotic exoskeleton which can help paraplegics to walk again?
- I think it lacks the "interesting" part of DYK. I think I read in the article that this one is significantly smaller and more lightweight than the others? Also, that users can actually sit down with it. Is there any way to incorporate that into the hook?--v/r - TP 21:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is this version more interesting? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that Vanderbilt University has built a robotic exoskeleton which allows paraplegics to walk independently, and also improves their strength and circulation using functional electrical stimulation?
- Is this version more interesting? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed the hook to something more clearly supported by the article's sources – do you think this might work? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I've edited this so that each version of the hook can be seen (and I've struck the original hook, since it was rejected); any future changes should be done as new ALT hooks rather than editing the original one. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
BlueMoonset asked me to take a look at this. I caveat this review by saying that medical devices in no way fall within my area of expertise. I still don't think it meets the guidelines for reliable sources. Most of the material is sourced either to Vanderbilt or to the company that's going to market it. The two other sources (other than general background ones) do not seem to me to be sufficient to support the claims. The first (medGadget blog) appears independent but for most of the claims simply quotes Vanderbilt without necessarily endorsing it. The second (Co.Exist) reads like a press release. While there are published papers on the exoskeleton eg [1][2], they reflect highly preliminary results and don't compare this device with others. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been over a week since the above and no action has been taken beyond adding a single secondary source. The article was on the front page for 105 minutes before it was removed, and that's going to have to stand as the extent of its exposure there. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
