Talk:Scientists say new medical diagnostic chip can sort cells anywhere with an inkjet

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Seems this headline might add the word "medical" somewhere, perhaps in the neighborhood of "diagnostic", lest the reader have no idea from the headline what sort of tool this is. --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I really want the headline to be catchier, but not everything is laser mice. I will ponder it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
"Scientists say new printable diagnostic chip could allow early cancer detection, save lives in low-income countries" Ugh, still so bland. We're talking revolutionary levels of accessibility here! Bringing science to the people! Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Current proposal is overly long, by bringing in clean rooms (which are not part of "tell[ing] the most important and unique thing" here) and partly redundant printers. Will want some collapsing during review if not before. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well I could bang my head against it some more, but if anyone else has any ideas, no need to wait. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've tried something with the headline. Frustratingly (a mild term for what I'm feeling) I didn't get to reviewing it today. --Pi zero (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Real life imposing itself on the wikischedule again? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Note on sources[edit]

I like to include the actual study mostly for anyone who wants to go look at it (and to introduce newbs and students to "this is what a scientific paper looks like"). I used the abstract (the publicly visible portion), NOT the whole thing. (That's why the link leads to the abstract and not the whole thing.) If there is any specific fact that is in the abstract and not also in the Eurekalert writeup, I will mark it in the Wikicode. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

When covering release of a scientific paper, it's highly desirable to provide readers with a link to the paper (I hate when some msm outlets omit the link). If we don't draw on it at all, so that it's not a source, it goes in a separate section after Sources called External links. --Pi zero (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay done. Anything not from Eurekalert is marked in Wikicode.
I've got some concerns about Indian Express. While it does contain some information not also found in the Eurekalert article, the two are so similar that I think the latter was probably the basis for the former. If we're just going for proof of notability, that should be fine, but independence is also a factor. Should we hold off until an additional source is available? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Now that I've carefully studied them, I don't think there is anything in the PTI article that's not in Eurekalert. A fresh lede has been written, some things have been left out, some things have been reordered, but afaics it's a completely derivative work.

So we're left with the paper itself, and the press release through Eurekalert. This leaves the sourcing very thin; just the Eurekalert press release plus the paper itself. That's clearly less breadth of sourcing than we prefer, although I find a couple of cases in the archives where that's all we managed (one from 2011 and one from 2014, iirc). It's further bothersome than the scientists are all from the same university — no internal breadth via collaboration between multiple universities. I'm going to think about that a bit (while, as it happens, eating supper). --Pi zero (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Stanford's PR including press image of lead author, chip, senior author. Media contacts: jeanne.thompson{at} NB: Supplemental information (pdf)
Looking for the authors:

Review of revision 4286148 [Not ready][edit]

I ran a fresh search and found a few more, but they all seem very similar to the press release themselves. Maybe wait a day and see if mainstream picks it up. There's usually a lag. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the original event is now on its third-day-after (as of about a quarter hour ago). After the third day freshness gets to be a tough sell; one needs "new information come to light" (cf. WN:Newsworthiness#New information).

I thought I saw something in a gnews search saying something about asking a scientist not involved in the research who basically said, yeah, it'd be important if they can do that. And I thought, good for them. Of course, Wikinewsies have been known to bypass the freshness problem for scientific research by interviewing a researcher; I see FAs of this type in our archives by BRS and Gryllida (, though not all of those of are this type). --Pi zero (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Listing similar articles[edit]

I found a few the other day and may go back and repeat them here if I feel like it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand jackpot:

Review of revision 4286397 [Passed][edit]