The following discussion 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 Matty.007 16:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• ... that flow cytometry bioinformaticians use methods from computational statistics and machine learning to analyse single cell data gathered by flow cytometry for cancer and HIV/AIDS research?

• Reviewed: Eugene S. Matthews

Created by Kierano (talk). Self nominated at 00:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC).

• The article is new enough (within 5 days of nomination), it is long enough, citations are inline, but there may be a copyright issue that needs to be resolved. The article is largely reproduced from here under Creative Commons License CC-By 2.5 [1], which is Wikipedia compatible WP:Compatible license. However, PLOS Computational Biology article is licensed CC-By 4.0 [2]. CC-By 4.0 is not listed on WP:Compatible license, so I don't know if it is Wikipedia compatible, though I would guess it is. Otherwise, the hook is interesting, it is accurate and cited with inline citations, and it is neutral. When the copyright compatibility is determined, it should be good to go. I am One of Many (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! Regarding the copyright issues, this can probably be resolved by the fact that the original version of the article (and hence the one generating the copyright) was prepared on the PLoS wiki here, and is CC-BY 2.5. Regardless, I'll bring this up with the editors at PLoS. The purpose of this series of articles is to get academics to write review papers to the Wikipedia manual of style, so that they can be co-published in the journal and on Wikipedia, so I'm sure they will be interested in ensuring license compatibility. -Kieran (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to add to this, I believe this is one of the first articles anywhere to be published under CC-BY 4.0, which is a really new version. -Kieran (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yikes, looking at all the discussion elsewhere about the 4.0 licenses, it seems like the version compatibility issue is a big mess. Anyway, there is a much easier solution, based on the fact that I am the author of the material, and per PLoS policy, retained the copyright (see the line on the article as published in the journal -- "Copyright: © 2013 O'Neill et al."). As such, when I uploaded it to Wikipedia, I "irrevocably agree[d] to release [my] contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence and the GFDL", which I, as copyright holder, had the right to do. That should resolve the copyright issue -Kieran (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• PLOS Computational Biology used and still uses CC BY-SA 3.0 here, so it is covered by 3.0 and likely 4.0 when things get settled because it is suppose to be more generic. As such, it is good to go. I am One of Many (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)