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 Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
... that recommended workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 emphasize ventilation, sneeze guards, hand washing, and staying home if one is sick as even more effective than masks? Source: [1], pp. 12–16: "The most effective protection measures are (listed from most effective to least effective): engineering controls, administrative controls, safe work practices, and PPE." The examples in the hook are listed in the sections for each type of protection measure.
Comment: Much of the text is closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources, which is within policy, but this text doesn't count towards the 1,500 character limit. However, there is more than 1,500 characters of original text, mainly in the lead and the WHO-sourced text near the end of the article. See DYK rule 2b.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Thanks for writing this article! Everything is in order. buidhe 05:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The hook was pulled back for being unclear about how the relative effectiveness of the hazard controls was being determined. Here's a revised hook for review. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The revised hook seems much the same as the previous version. It is unsatisfactory because measures such as sneeze guards do not seem to be given any special emphasis within the article. For example, the advice that leaps out at first glance is the "Top 10 Tips" poster. This doesn't even mention ventilation and sneeze guards or anything like them. Also, the article seems to be mainly written from a US perspective. As the US is not doing very well in this pandemic, its policies should not be given undue weight as best practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: This is covered by the quote from the original hook above. As part of the hierarchy of hazard controls, engineering controls and administrative controls like the ones mentioned are always considered more protective and desirable than personal protective equipment. As for the prevalence of U.S. sources, I agree that more non-U.S. sources could be included, especially for developing countries. When I wrote this article on March, I looked for non-U.S. sources but OSHA and CDC had by far the most comprehensive guidance. However, U.S.-centricness is not part of the DYK criteria; it's more of an issue for a GA review. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not agree that the source quote supports the hook as it doesn't highlight items like sneeze guards either. On the other point, the US context matters for the hook because it says "recommended workplace hazard controls". This does not say who recommends them and whether the recommendation is reliable. It seems to be implicit Americentrism – that US standards are the only ones that exist and that they are trustworthy. Other places have workplace standards – see COVID-19: EU-OSHA guidance for the workplace, for example. Do they emphasize sneeze guards? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The trouble with ALT2, for me, is that it is quite unremarkable. I had a look through the article but couldn't see anything that wasn't fairly obvious. Perhaps if we chew over the detail, something better will emerge. For example, the link sneeze guard doesn't work well currently. That's because that article is just about the sort of glass panel that you tend to find covering a salad bar. What we're talking about now is the sort of partition or perspex screen which would previously be used in high security situations -- bank cashiers, NY/London taxis, ticket offices and the like. See here for some discussion of the difficulty of doing this in more casual situations like an Uber ride. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I'm starting to add more non-U.S. guidance to the article; there's a very good list here. How about the following hook? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The third time is the charm as ALT3 seems excellent, making an interesting point which makes me want to know more. The source is a wiki, but that just seems to be the way that the EU-OSHA maintains their documents and there's a single author credited. And so we're good to go. Thanks for perservering. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT3, but what kind of an RS is OSHWIKI? Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of copying too; see Earwig's. This should be put in quotes if you don't want to rewrite it. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I put a note about this at the top of the nomination, but it's easy to miss with all the subsequent discussion. There's a lot of text closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources. According to DYK rule 2b, this text doesn't count towards the 1,500 character requirement, but there's still enough original text in the article to satisfy it. As for the OSHWiki, it's an official publication of EU-OSHA, and it's not really a traditional wiki in that contributions are only made by accredited authors (see [3]). John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. Yoninah (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for writing this article! Everything is in order. buidhe 05:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The hook was pulled back for being unclear about how the relative effectiveness of the hazard controls was being determined. Here's a revised hook for review. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The revised hook seems much the same as the previous version. It is unsatisfactory because measures such as sneeze guards do not seem to be given any special emphasis within the article. For example, the advice that leaps out at first glance is the "Top 10 Tips" poster. This doesn't even mention ventilation and sneeze guards or anything like them. Also, the article seems to be mainly written from a US perspective. As the US is not doing very well in this pandemic, its policies should not be given undue weight as best practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not agree that the source quote supports the hook as it doesn't highlight items like sneeze guards either. On the other point, the US context matters for the hook because it says "recommended workplace hazard controls". This does not say who recommends them and whether the recommendation is reliable. It seems to be implicit Americentrism – that US standards are the only ones that exist and that they are trustworthy. Other places have workplace standards – see COVID-19: EU-OSHA guidance for the workplace, for example. Do they emphasize sneeze guards? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The third time is the charm as ALT3 seems excellent, making an interesting point which makes me want to know more. The source is a wiki, but that just seems to be the way that the EU-OSHA maintains their documents and there's a single author credited. And so we're good to go. Thanks for perservering. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT3, but what kind of an RS is OSHWIKI? Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
