When reporting results of statistical studies, be very careful not to assert causation that isn't there. Statistics alone generally don't show causation, they show correlation. The current lede missteps when it says "because", and when it says "lead to"; and that's the whole second half of the lede, by word count.
The news event is not clearly identified in the lede, and this becomes more manifest when one realizes the lede doesn't answer the whenbasic question (and when one asks what exactly one would be answering that question about). It's my impression from the sources that the event is publication in a journal, today (September 3).
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
When reporting results of statistical studies, be very careful not to assert causation that isn't there. Statistics alone generally don't show causation, they show correlation. The current lede missteps when it says "because", and when it says "lead to"; and that's the whole second half of the lede, by word count.
The news event is not clearly identified in the lede, and this becomes more manifest when one realizes the lede doesn't answer the whenbasic question (and when one asks what exactly one would be answering that question about). It's my impression from the sources that the event is publication in a journal, today (September 3).
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The unverifiable claims needed to be removed, which I deemed doable as reviewer in the altered form of the article. These sorts of studies revolve around how incredibly difficult it is to show statistically significant links at all, so it's crucial when reporting on them to not overstate what has been shown. Even if the statistical link between 9/11 rescue work and cancer were shown, it still needn't follow that mercury and dust caused it; look carefully at exactly what the Daily Mail said, and you'll find they commendably didn't claim causation. They said here's these statistics about 9/11 rescue work versus these health problems, and by the way there was all this mercury and dust.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The unverifiable claims needed to be removed, which I deemed doable as reviewer in the altered form of the article. These sorts of studies revolve around how incredibly difficult it is to show statistically significant links at all, so it's crucial when reporting on them to not overstate what has been shown. Even if the statistical link between 9/11 rescue work and cancer were shown, it still needn't follow that mercury and dust caused it; look carefully at exactly what the Daily Mail said, and you'll find they commendably didn't claim causation. They said here's these statistics about 9/11 rescue work versus these health problems, and by the way there was all this mercury and dust.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Should be "9/11" or at least "9-11". In the United States, "911" is immediately understood as the emergency services number, so the title is interpreting as "public service firefighters" rather than "9/11 responders". 76.117.247.55 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
