This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

IMO...this article is a PROMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion article(not to mention the infobox) it needs to be trimmed down substantially,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is better than [1] before, however it still needs trimming, please compare to other articles of the same nature/topic, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ozzie10aaaa, please add why you have added the "accuracy contested" tag, I think this is needed as I don't see a specific section or statements that you have tagged. (I have no opinion on this as it is outside my area of expertise, this is just a pro forma request.) Ldm1954 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles on Wikipedia may contain significant factual inaccuracies, i.e. information that is verifiably wrong per [2] and the initial tag that states There were three fake sources to statements in this article [3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @AmyEBHC has told me that she corrected the sources which I tagged. I did request an independent Expert opinion. Do you have evidence that supports that tag for the current version? Ldm1954 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the tag was based on that, I'd have to go sentence by sentence (which I don't have time for now) hence I'll remove that 'tag'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Djulbegovic&diff=prev&oldid=1213548026 ...however if you look (above) I posted that this article looks like PROMO and needs trimming IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed substantially for the infobox and the article. I have checked for inaccuracies in reference and repaired or removed them. I added more supporting citations. @Ldm1954 shared WP Puffery which was helpful for guidance. It would be good to have an expert opinion on the page. AmyEBHC (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better now, although I think you should use the Infobox scientist (not person) ((Infobox scientist)). I think it would be good to have comments from @Ozzie10aaaa who had a strong opinion, and perhaps also @Qflib. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ldm1954

OK, that is what you meant. I will change it out, thank you. I welcome comments from @Ozzie10aaaa and @Qflib. I may be too close to the content to be objective. AmyEBHC (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have the promo and false reference banners removed, I have made substantial changes and did a re errors check and it comes up clean with 44 references @Ldm1954@Ozzie10aaaa Thanks it does fit better with the Scientist Infobox and format. In retrospect, I could have started fresh rather than fix the banned editors work and work from their foundation. AmyEBHC (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the two banners you're referring to were placed by another editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they were added by a Sockpuppet who was banned March 5 and this person had also pushed it into draft. . The false refs were removed , I removed the banners as it said I could in the instructions @Ldm1954 said this was inappropriate and then @Ldm1954@Ozzie10aaaa were connected with restoring the banners. I then worked on fixing language, framing,removing puffery, adding refs to unreferenced sources and improving the page. There were no fake references when the banners were restored. Whoever did this page originally did this academic no favors and it could harm his reputation when he can't even fix it himself do to COI. I understand this , it was an unfortunate chain of events. I hope we can all move past this and I would appreciate the banners being removed. How can I do this??? AmyEBHC (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the banners Ldm1954 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Ldm1954 Ithink the page looks much better and I appreciate your guidance, I will take this with me in further work with Wikipedia AmyEBHC (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]