Template:Did you know nominations/In silico clinical trials

In silico clinical trials

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in the future virtual pharmaceuticals may be tested on virtual patients in In silico clinical trials before the real drugs are tested on real people in real clinical trials?

Created by MattAtAvicenna (talk). Self nominated at 12:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - I am concerned that the last two sections are mostly unreferenced.
• Neutral: - The last two sections also appear to be speculation. If they can be sourced, it should be made clear that this is speculation by party X and not fact.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: There isn't a specific sentence that can be pointed to for the hook - it is basically the entire idea of the article, but am inclined to let it pass... In addition to the above comment, try to avoid using language like "if we could..." - an article should not be written in the first person. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• @MattAtAvicenna: - without a response soon this is closing time. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Panyd: - I think the article is no longer new enough for a did you know nomination anyway. Am I right? I assume that is why the comments are on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAtAvicenna (talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 May 2015‎ (UTC)

• @MattAtAvicenna: As long as some work is done to deal with these concerns in the next couple of days, this can still pass. Harrias ^talk 08:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Panyd: :*@ThaddeusB: :*@BlueMoonset: - Thank you all for your patience and direction! I have addressed the concerns brought up on this DYK page, adding sources, re-wording the sentence which was written in the first person, and attributing predictions to a legitimate source. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the criteria needed to make make the DYK request happen! Many thanks. MattAtAvicenna (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Some care still needs to be given along the lines of WP:CRYSTAL. This is a technology that is decades away from being feasible, so statements about what "will" happen should be avoided, even if sourced, and even saying something "may" or "could" happen is overly vague. And although this is possibly beyond the scope of DYK review, the article says little about the actual current state of research on the topic, or details of research concretely planned. These kinds of speculative technologies are hard to write about well for these reasons. I applaud the author for taking this on, and I hope it can be further improved to satisfy the requirement for neutrality. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Please notice the nominating user's name and the name of the project promoted by the article ("the Avicenna support action that runs between October 2013 and September 2015."). See WP:COI. Also, see also WP:NPOV. I asked for help at WP:MED

• Dame Etna (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)