Template:Did you know nominations/Bear's grease

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Bear's grease[edit]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that bear's grease was a popular treatment for hair loss, because of a mistaken belief that as bears are very hairy, their fat could help humans?~~

Reviewed: Gertrude Weaver
Comment: Tweaking of hook or ALTs welcome

Created by Edwardx (talk), Victuallers (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

ALT1... that bear's grease has been recommended as a treatment for hair loss since the twelfth century? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is interesting and promising but the hook needs more work as we're within the scope of WP:MEDRS. The word "mistaken" in the original hook seems to overstate what's said in the supporting source. The source explains why people believed in this treatment but doesn't actually say that they were wrong. I suppose the truth of the matter is that we really don't know for sure because proper clinical trials have not been done. The ALT1 hook seems to err in the other direction and might naively be read as meaning that this is an effective treatment.

To find the middle ground, we might just trim the original hook. Here's some examples:

ALT2 ... that bear's grease was a popular treatment for hair loss because bears are hairy?
ALT3 ... that bear's grease was a popular treatment for hair loss?

Another way to go is to focus on the picture, which we're not currently using.

ALT4 ... that Atkinsons (pictured) was a popular brand of bear's grease?

This leaves the reader wondering why there would be a popular brand of bear's grease and they may click through to find out what people used it for.

Andrew (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that we conduct a full clinical trial on the matter before proceeding. I would also like to know whether eating more fish makes you a better swimmer and if carrots help you see in the dark. Or, we could go with ALT5 "... that bear's grease was once thought to be an effective treatment for hair loss?" Philafrenzy (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree with the logic of ALT4 EEng (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. Increasingly, I favour short and snappy hooks. All of your three ALTs are an improvement on my original thought. I would be happy with any of them, and ALT4 may indeed be the most straightforward. The very idea of bear's grease is intriguing and needs little elaboration to create a good hook. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The intrigue of ALT4. EEng (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC) I seem to have said this already.

There's no citation for ALT4 and it differs from what the article states anyway (ALT parade meet my rain) Belle (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, go put bear grease on your cat. Or whatever. Andrew, can you fix the article to accommodate this hook? EEng (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough, no copyvio or plagiarism, neutral. QPQ done. The line on the Native American use is too close to the source. I have a few problems with this article though: it sets out a topic ("Bear's Grease", a baldness treatment) and then largely focuses on another (the uses of bear grease in general); many of the claims aren't referenced (although references for some of the claims can be found in the sources for the Atkinsons article, many are unsupported); there is some blurring of the source statements (for example "In the British market, the grease from Russian bears was the most highly prized" "In the British market" isn't what the source says); there is an uncited explanation of the Cruikshank cartoon (if it doesn't need citing perhaps it doesn't need explaining); the section on use by the Native Americans is so reduced from the source as to be almost useless. (Apart from that and the uncited hook, everything is fine!) Belle (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Another great example of why?, oh why?? do we insist in nominating within 7 days??? Edwx, Vict, Phila, can you go off at your leisure and do what needs to be done, then get back to us when the article's ready? EEng (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I think that I've now addressed all the outstanding issues. Edwardx (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle, do your stuff. EEng (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I like ALT4

Good enough...it still sets out bear's grease solely as a hair loss treatment in the opening and ALT4 still isn't supported by the sources (we don't know if it was "popular", though I'm sure it was more popular than I'm making myself on this nomination). ALT5 is fine though, as it doesn't disenchant any current bear's grease users by issuing an absolute statement that it doesn't work. Picture is fine too if you want to try levering it into ALT5 somehow [crowbar sound effect]. Belle (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)