Template:Did you know nominations/Li Lianda

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 Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Li Lianda

(

)

... that pharmacologist Li Lianda claimed that a pharmaceutical company's product was unsafe, but lost a lawsuit brought by the company? Source: Sina Finance

Reviewed: Brisingidae

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

@Zanhe: Honestly I don't find the proposed hook interesting: it's very common for people to employees to claim that their employer's product or service is unsafe, and lose lawsuits. In fact, it's also common for people to lose lawsuits on claims about company safety. We may need a new hook here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I respectfully disagree. Li Lianda was not an employee of the pharmaceutical company (Tasly), but one of China's best known pharmacologists and an academician. It's highly unusual for an academician to publicly denounce a major company's product and then lose an ensuing lawsuit. Please reconsider. -Zanhe (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: The hook could have potentially worked if the company was internationally well-known, but alas. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Please propose a new hook, it's been several weeks since my ping. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I still stand by the original hook, but since you're so insistent, how about:

ALT1: ... that pharmacologist Li Lianda won a national science award for his research on the traditional Chinese medical concept of blood stasis?

-Zanhe (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a much better hook; at the very least, it would introduce readers to both traditional Chinese medicine and blood stasis. It's getting late where I live so I'll finish the review tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I hope you have not forgotten about this lol. You havent finished the review. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, got busy with real-life matters. Will try to finish by tomorrow, but so far I don't see any problems with the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the article, it seems that the article meets the technical requirements: it's new enough, long enough, the sourcing is adequate (offline and Chinese sources accepted AGF), no close paraphrasing, stable, and with a QPQ. No image so no review needed for that. The part I'm worried about is his work on traditional Chinese medicine; as I'm inexperienced when it comes to the handling of alternative medicine in articles, so I don't know if the article conforms to the relevant guidelines. I'll leave a message at WP:FTN and if they give the go signal, I'll approve this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: He researched traditional Chinese medical theories using scientific methods, just as Nobel Prize winner Tu Youyou did (who worked at the same China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences as Li). This is not the same as the quack medicine practiced by "alternative therapists". -Zanhe (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I see I got an affirmative response from WP:FTN. As this is now cleared over there, this is now good to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)