Talk:Cloud laboratory

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• ... that a cloud laboratory can reduce costs, decrease variability, and facilitate collaboration in life science research experiments? Source: Cloud labs reduce variability in experimental execution, as the code can be interrogated, analyzed, and executed repeatedly.[2] They democratize access to expensive laboratory equipment while standardizing experimental execution, which could potentially help address the replication crisis.[5][7][8] They also reduce costs by sharing capital costs across many users, by running experiments in parallel, and reducing instrument downtime.[8] Finally, they facilitate collaboration by make it easier to share protocols, data, and data processing methods through the cloud.[7]
  • Reviewed:

Created by Cglife.bmarcus (talk). Nominated by Bkell (talk) at 21:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - I feel the article should mention the downsides/limitations of cloud laboratories, especially in the section "Using a cloud laboratory vs. high-throughput experimentation". Most literature emphasizes the positive aspects, as reflected in the article, though limitations deserve a quick mention as well. One sentence there ought to suffice.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - I feel the hook, as written, is too broad and does not emphasize the more unique advantages of a cloud laboratory.

QPQ: - pending
Overall: The article is in pretty good shape overall, no major issues that I noticed here or at NPP. My biggest concern with the article is that there are no mentions of disadvantages, but this can be remedied with a short addition. Regarding the hook, I feel it should emphasize one specific or unique aspect, rather than encompass multiple features that are less noteworthy on their own. Of the ones mentioned, decreasing variability has the most hook potential IMO; another possibility could be to highlight the ability of a cloud laboratory to run many experiments simultaneously. Once the minor neutrality issue is addressed, and with a stronger hook, this should be good to go. ^Complex/_Rational 21:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bkell and Cglife.bmarcus: In case you have missed it, the reviewer noted some issues above. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bkell: Are you interested in keeping this nomination? –LordPeterII (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I submitted this DYK nomination because doing so was suggested as part of step 4 of accepting an AfC submission. I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic or motivated to get this particular DYK nomination accepted. —Bkell (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bkell: Okay, not a problem at all. Pinging @ComplexRational just to let them know.

This nomination should be closed (unless someone wants to take over) because the nominator is no longer interested in it, and the article author no longer active. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)