# Talk:Sophie Jamal

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sophie Jamal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 14:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks interesting; I'll snag it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

First sentence should either address the difference between her birth name and her professional name (the title of the article), or use only the professional name
Done. Vaticidalprophet 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"she additionally completed a Ph.D." is a little awkward. Maybe "Additionally, she completed" Or "she also completed"? Not a hill I'll die on.
Do we know when she worked with Cummings? Based on the placement in the article, it appears to be after her second PhD, but the 1998 date in para 3 contradicts that.
I don't really have good dates for anything, I think. Might double-check, but I don't recall it when I was writing the article, and, well, I guess you can gather from elsewhere I'm not currently brimming with enthusiasm. Vaticidalprophet 10:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
So what's the plan here? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Missed this at the time -- sorry! It now says "in the 1990s", which is as precise as I know. Vaticidalprophet 01:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Willing to be convinced otherwise, but not sure the end of para 1 after her educational achievements is the right spot for her childhood issues. I think it might be better if it were moved before that, or maybe moved down into the "Medical licensing" section, since it was used as justification for her to get her license back
Reworded the sentence a bit, to focus on her upbringing more than the psychological consequences of it, but I don't quite think moving it works. Earlier poses the problem that there isn't really much earlier to point at, while omitting it makes it not all that much of an early-life section at all. Vaticidalprophet 14:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, fair, not a hill I'll die on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The CMAJ article says she was not just staff at the hospital but was the "head of endocrinology and director of osteoporosis research"; I think that detail should be in the article
Fixed. Vaticidalprophet 10:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Sourcing for the sentence that starts "She was recognized as an expert..." is a little thin. I don't think a single ref to her own newspaper column is sufficient to cover the rest of what it says.
Hm. I feel like I can duplicate a ref from elsewhere to cover this? There's definitely a sense I get from sources that she was pretty strongly recognizable in both mainstream and medical stuff. Vaticidalprophet 10:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
That'd be fine, I just don't think it should only hinge on a ref to her own column. I don't even think much rewording is really necessary, you just have to plop some refs in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
As usual, newspapers.com saved my ass here. I was able to find a couple more good examples of community/general population expert-recognition, and reworded the sentence a bit to describe the broader range of how that presented. Vaticidalprophet 03:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Should probably link nitroglycerin and osteoporosis in the "Early life and career" section (I know they're linked in the lead but I think it's worth repeating in the body)
Linked. Vaticidalprophet 08:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
"The study claimed to find that nitroglycerin was a safe and effective treatment and preventative for osteoporosis" - that second clause feels awkward, but I'm not sure how best to reword.
Agree that scans a bit weird. I inserted 'of' after 'treatment', which hopefully reads smoother. Vaticidalprophet 08:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not my favorite sentence, but it works :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
"drawing the attention of interested parties" this feels redundant; if you're paying attention you're interested by default, I would think
This was a rewording by someone else; the original was 'luminaries', which on the one hand was a bit POV, but on the other hand the purpose was to highlight that her work was being looked at by Big Names. Is there a middle ground? Vaticidalprophet 08:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I think you could get away with something like "the attention of major medical establishments such as...X Y Z"; that implies Big Name interest without being too POV about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. Vaticidalprophet 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like we should mention Richard Eastell, even briefly, when first discussing the 2011 study first. Right now it sort of comes out of nowhere that she had a collaborator on it. And, per the CMAJ article, looks like Cummings was also involved in that research.
I've mentioned him a bit further, with a footnote about his own weird history. Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Ohhh, trying to appeal to my love of footnotes, are you? Well, it's working :P (But we still didn't mention that Cummings was involved in that one - can we do that?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm the guy who used a footnote in a three-paragraph article. Added Cummings. Vaticidalprophet 05:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the Misconduct section could stand to be a little more clear/detailed about the circumstances. I thought I understood the situation when I read the article, but after reading the CPSO/CMAJ sources, I felt confused about what's in the article. Based on the CPSO/CMAJ sources, it looks like the fraud was discovered in 2014 during the follow-up study (which CPSO calls the "NABT Study"), which re-analysed data from the 2011 JAMA study, but the article's not quite explicit about that. Also we should mention that the fraud itself covers 3 studies - the JAMA, the rejected Sclerostin study, and the uncompleted NABT study.
This and the newspaper column thing are the only issues that remain, otherwise we're basically good to go here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I've clarified all those slightly, how is it looking? Vaticidalprophet 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, I think that's more clear. Looks like we're all set to go here! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Last sentence of para 1 in that section is a little close to the original but also slightly misstates things by pluralizing "computers" and "facilities" - the original uses the singular for both
The sentence is a little rejiggered, though mostly with an eye to fixing the singular/plural issue. Nonetheless, hope the paraphrasing is a bit further away too. Vaticidalprophet 21:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
For para 3, I think the sources can support providing a little more detail about the other papers. Retraction Watch gives publication years and notes that there were data analysis issues for both, and I thought it was of interest that all authors but Jamal requested retraction in both cases.
Just noticed I forgot to tell you I'd elaborated on these as well. Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah this is good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
"Medical licensing" section is basically good as-is, although I'm not sure "castigated by the media" is supported by the single source cited. I think we either need more sources to show that it was a broad media condemnation (one newspaper is not "the media"), or a slight reword.
So the Toronto Sun source is the most explicitly negative on the reinstatement, but I wouldn't say Undark or the Star are exactly treating it as an unmitigated good either, just in a different tone. The Star features critic quotes quite heavily, while Undark treats her reinstatement as an example of scientific fraudsters basically getting away with it. Do either of those look like they could be a supplemental ref there to support it? Vaticidalprophet 21:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This was less a case that I doubted that she got castigated and more that the one ref on its own didn't quite support the wording. Throw in the other refs and you're good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Undark ref reused to support this as well. Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Works for me ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that's all for now. As usual, I'm open to discussion about suggested changes. Article is verifiable with solid sources & appropriate citations & has no CV/para issues, adheres to NPOV, no stability issues. No images of the subject, understandably, so criteria 6 doesn't apply. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

And it's a pass! Another solid piece of weird and interesting work, Vati. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Springee I'm not sure what your BLP objection is. The note is careful not to say fraud, just "misconduct", which could be anything, immediately clarifies that he was cleared, and is backed up by a reliable source. BLP does not prevent the mention of any or all information that could be construed as negative, only that we have to take care that it meets NPOV and V, and the footnote does both. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Even the accusation of fraud is a BLP concern.  Given he was found to have not committed fraud we really should just leave it out.  It's not germane to the facts of this article.  BLP is clear that we should err on the side of do no harm[1].  Sadly Richard Eastell's article for a long time was about 50% dedicated to amplifying this issue.  However, a recent AFD seems to have a consensus that the emphasis on this investigation was given way too much weight[2].  Another editor trimmed the material down.  If the Eastell article had stayed at 50% "fraud investigation" I would be more inclined to agree with keeping this here or if Eastell's fraud accusations were related to this topic.  As they aren't and the growing consensus here is the fraud topic is over emphasized in his BLP, I think removal here is the correct thing to do. Springee (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, the wording in this article is not an accusation of fraud. It says "misconduct" and goes into no detail whatsoever, salacious or otherwise, and immediately clarifies that he was technically cleared. Considering that what remains in his own article actually does admit that he did something wrong - that "he may have been negligent in making "untrue" and "misleading" declarations" - I do think it's relevant to note. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
But it's not relevant to this article.  Even the claim of misconduct is something that carries negative BLP implications and shouldn't be included unless its strictly relevant to this topic.  Do we have sources that establish the relevance or that his actions were connected to the issue in this case? Springee (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been pretty divided over this one. I think Springee's removal is reasonable, but mostly in the context of the changes to the original article -- it was an important contextualization when his article was...yeah, sort of a hitpiece, but now it's improved there's less need to note "he didn't actually do much wrong". I can see the argument either way. (Having said that, the WP:DUPLINK removal was wrong -- "by section" is allowed.) Vaticidalprophet 04:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason why her full name is mentioned in the infobox but not in the lead? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)