Talk:Study confirms efficacy of NewLink Genetics ebola vaccine

showAuthors?

Is there any on-Wikinews equivalent of the "showauthors" function, in which the full list of authors is retained in the code but only the first four authors are visible to the casual reader? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would you want to? They're all authors; if a lot of authors are listed, we list a lot of authors. Scientific studies involve a huge amount of work. Yes, it's messy; life is, sometimes. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it clutters things a bit. I don't mind one way or the other personally, but on Wikipedia, it's the form. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Review

@Pi zero: This is really cool, and I really want to see it published, if only because we heavily underreport scientific advances. I'd like to fiddle around with the lede and the inverted pyramid to focus a bit more clearly on Newlink's optimism. My concern is, it needs reviewed tomorrow UTC or it goes stale. I'm painfully aware that I jumped in on the Aleppo article, disqualified myself from review, and then had to watch it gradually go stale (twice) and not be able to help. If I play around with it for a bit will you be likely to get a review done? BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Supposing you can do what I gather you're hoping for, I'll undertake to scrounge the time for it. --Pi zero (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the late start BRS. I was contributing to the project by defying the sterotype of Wikipedians being sad doofs who have no friends or family or things to do on Christmas. Thanks for being an industrious non-doof who takes the time to contribute to the public reading experience on Christmas. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

<grin> Last year I worked at least 12hrs on Christmas Day, so sitting with my partner around the house is a refreshing change for me. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• This might be a candidate for the rarely-used "new information come to light" clause. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Blood Red Sandman: Comment on your new changes: The review voucher is not for this vaccine. Working on the vaccine qualifies Newlink for the voucher to use on a future project. Or they can sell it for hundreds of millions of dollars. The thing that is being fast-tracked via the voucher is not this vaccine. It's like if the oldest kid wins a school contest, then their younger sibling gets free tuition. The FDA may also fast-track the ebola vaccine but that's less about an award program and more about saving lives and avoiding human suffering. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

And for some reason I can't change the article name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: What changed article name do you want? --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The old one would do, but basically anything that doesn't suggest that the fast-track is for this vaccine. (Yes the Newlink rep also said that the FDA might fast-track it, but the point of the article is the voucher.) Also, as BRS points out, most of the sources say NewLink with a capital L. I guess Wikinews doesn't have the same rule against non-standard capitalization that Wikipedia does.

U.S. FDA may award NewLink Genetics a fast-track voucher for confirming efficacy of ebola vaccine

U.S. FDA may award NewLink Genetics a fast-track voucher for work with ebola vaccine

U.S. FDA may award Newlink Genetics a priority review voucher for confirming efficacy of ebola vaccine

Whichever of those sounds good to you, or equivalent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Renamed. Wondering why you had difficulty, of course. Moved without leaving a redirect, though that can be risky with an unpublished article because if somebody starts editing a page before it's moved without redirect, the software doesn't (that I've ever seen) warn them the page is no longer there before saving the edit. --Pi zero (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That leaves the current focus as {{single source}}. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the headline can't put its weight on the single-sourced element. --Pi zero (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4273417 [Passed]

Revision 4273417 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As BRS points out, the announcement on Friday can't itself be the focus because it's single-source. The announcement doesn't quite qualify as an expected development from the earlier materials (which is occasionally a way to provide multiple sources where only one of them post-dates the event), so it has to be treated as new-information-come-to-light with the actual focus being the study release on Thursday. I'm taking into account the considerable difficulty we have in synthesis coverage of scientific paper publications because their usually-low profile causes them to slip past our three-day outer limit on freshness. The other approach that works with these, which has been used quite effectively on a number of occasions, is to interview one or more of the scientists involved and produce an OR piece; but of course that's an advanced technique, and not what we're dealing with here. I've tried within my purview as independent reviewer to let the primary focus fall on the multi-sourced event while the plausible-but-not-actually-anticipated Friday follow-up provides extension of freshness (keeping in mind, a scientific study release isn't {{breaking}} news, apt to accelerated loss of freshness). Other points: The company itself uses "NewLink". Distance from source (i.e. anti-plagiarism measures) shouldn't rely on "scuffing up" (changes of tense, substituting a synonym here and there, and whatnot). Structural rearrangement, and avoiding distinctive word-choice, are recommended at minimum, though of course ultimately one wants to use a completely different way of saying things, and different grouping of facts (so sentence information-content doesn't correspond) is desirable. The role of ring vaccination in the study seems an interesting point, though admittedly difficult to extract from the sources (so if one undertook it one would do well to provide help for the reviewer, such as embedded html comments or notes on the talk page). The paper itself emphasized the role of ring vaccination in the study, which may have been making a virtue of necessity, i.e., they had no other choice so might as well play it up — but still I found it interesting. Gathering statistics on a horrific virus (in a morally acceptable way) seems rather challenging. 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.

Revision 4273417 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As BRS points out, the announcement on Friday can't itself be the focus because it's single-source. The announcement doesn't quite qualify as an expected development from the earlier materials (which is occasionally a way to provide multiple sources where only one of them post-dates the event), so it has to be treated as new-information-come-to-light with the actual focus being the study release on Thursday. I'm taking into account the considerable difficulty we have in synthesis coverage of scientific paper publications because their usually-low profile causes them to slip past our three-day outer limit on freshness. The other approach that works with these, which has been used quite effectively on a number of occasions, is to interview one or more of the scientists involved and produce an OR piece; but of course that's an advanced technique, and not what we're dealing with here. I've tried within my purview as independent reviewer to let the primary focus fall on the multi-sourced event while the plausible-but-not-actually-anticipated Friday follow-up provides extension of freshness (keeping in mind, a scientific study release isn't {{breaking}} news, apt to accelerated loss of freshness). Other points: The company itself uses "NewLink". Distance from source (i.e. anti-plagiarism measures) shouldn't rely on "scuffing up" (changes of tense, substituting a synonym here and there, and whatnot). Structural rearrangement, and avoiding distinctive word-choice, are recommended at minimum, though of course ultimately one wants to use a completely different way of saying things, and different grouping of facts (so sentence information-content doesn't correspond) is desirable. The role of ring vaccination in the study seems an interesting point, though admittedly difficult to extract from the sources (so if one undertook it one would do well to provide help for the reviewer, such as embedded html comments or notes on the talk page). The paper itself emphasized the role of ring vaccination in the study, which may have been making a virtue of necessity, i.e., they had no other choice so might as well play it up — but still I found it interesting. Gathering statistics on a horrific virus (in a morally acceptable way) seems rather challenging. 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.

Oh! There actually was another publication that covered the voucher. I just removed it because the Des Moines Register was better and the other one cited it. Figured that made it redundant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)