` :::I understand your point, but let me take this back to the purely practical perspective I'm coming from.  (As a side note, of course the particular TACT trial article you identified is WP:PRIMARY and so it shouldn't be a problem to keep it out of our articles, although if you're pointing to a particular bit of article editing based on it, I don't know the backstory there.  But I understand that it's possible for a stinker meta-analysis or review article to get published in JAMA too.)My model for what I'm talking about:  The disease is that there are many ``motivated`` editors who want to introduce content into articles based on inappropriate sources.  Its symptom is editor-hours wasted arguing with them.  WP:MEDRS is a great drug cocktail that's an intervention which is pretty effective at minimizing the symptom, but I'd like it to be even more effective.  As with any intervention, there are side effects and unintended consequences.  It's common for an intervention to be described as having a cost/benefit analysis like, ``each year, out of every 100,000 women, 124 will develop breast cancer; without treatment X, 50 will die; with treatment X, 20 will die from the cancer anyway, and 2 will die from side effects of the treatment itself.``  (These are just bogus numbers for illustration.)  Is the intervention worth recommending?I get that an unintended consequence of a ``Good Journals`` list will be the occasional argument over a bad secondary source published in a Good Journal, and that argument will be exacerbated by the fact that the article was published in a Good Journal.  Mitigating this argument is:  1)  How much worse will the argument really be just because the article is in a Good Journal?  It would be a difficult argument anyway, and I'd probably end up notifying WT:MED regardless.  2)  How often does a Good Journal publish a bad secondary source?  If they do, how long will it be before they retract it or update it?  3)  How often does a Good Journal publish a bad secondary source in a subject area that's contentious enough to attract difficult editors?  If a Good Journal publishes a bad secondary source, but its topic is covered in a relatively quiet article, we simply remove it without argument.  It's only a problem if it's a contentious article.  4) Given that the normal case should be that Good Journals most often publish good secondary sources (they're Good Journals after all), how much arguing time will be saved?So the bottom line question is, would adding a Good Journals list to the WP:MEDRS cocktail be a net benefit?  I'm still thinking the answer is Yes and would like to move forward with it.   `