- 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: promoted by Launchballer talk 08:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Laura Veale
- ... that Laura Veale was the first Yorkshire-born woman to be qualified as a doctor?
- Source: Several, including: Harrogate Advertiser: "Hampsthwaite commemorates North Yorkshire’s first female doctor Laura Sobey Veale". Note: This fact has had to be carefully interpreted. It was initially expressed as "the first Yorkshire woman to become a doctor" on the brown plaque, pictured in the article and written by the eminent Harrogate historian Malcolm Neesam. He meant "Yorkshire-born". However it has since been interpreted to mean that she was the first female doctor to practise in Yorkshire, which would be incorrect. Edith Pechey was the first qualified woman doctor to practise in Yorkshire, but she was born in Essex, so to local understanding she was definitely not a "Yorkshire woman" (they are very parochially-minded here). Veale was born in Yorkshire.
- Reviewed: Sonja van den Ende
- Comment: Created in userspace over some weeks from 15 March, then moved to mainspace on 6 May.
Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 105 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Storye book (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC).
The article was moved to mainspace yesterday, so is new enough. It is far more than long enough and properly uses in-line citations (perhaps even more so than necessary for some sentences). The copyvio detector doesn't find anything other than names of things and quotes that are properly used in the article. The hook is short enough, interesting, and is cited inline. The QPQ has been done and there's no image to review. Looks good to go! SilverserenC 20:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review, Silver seren Re the "even more so than necessary", you'll find that some experienced editors are doing that for a good reason. For example, if you have a "first" in the article, that is going to be automatically questioned and double-checked, and rightly so. Therefore, it is worth finding as many different, independent sources as possible for that "first" and including them all in the article. There is also the fact that some sources may be accessible to some readers (e.g. readers with a subscription, readers in the UK, etc.) and some source may not be accessible to all (e.g. readers outside the UK or without subscription), so it's worth giving them a few alternative sources. A third reason is that various sources give different aspects to the same fact, and some sources also include extra facts which the editor chooses not to include in the article, but which are extremely interesting. In the cast of historical articles, contemporary sources may give the historical standpoint on the matter. Extra sources containing additional facts may also allow other editors to expand the article. Nothing is wasted in this particular article, and there is a reason for everything. Storye book (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book and Silver seren: The relevant policy is WP:CLUMP, which says that "Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." I'm afraid it would deserve {{clump}}, and I think your explanation on this page would constitute WP:SYNTH anyway.--Launchballer 11:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing the surplus reference. I notice there are several unattributed quotes, including (but not limited to) "the first Yorkshire[-born] woman to become a doctor" and the "by all reports" sentence after it, that are not attributed in text, and I think they should be.--Launchballer 19:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book and Silver seren: The relevant policy is WP:CLUMP, which says that "Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." I'm afraid it would deserve {{clump}}, and I think your explanation on this page would constitute WP:SYNTH anyway.--Launchballer 11:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Edit conflict. @Launchballer: (1) There are now no groups of more than three citations in the article. (2) Synth is about article content. It does not govern discussions on DYK templates, article talk pages or user talk pages. It is permissible to give one's opinion on DYK templates (how often have you seen the opinion "I don't like that hook"?) Neither is Synth about the grouping together of two or more references which support the relevant fact, and just so happen to contain extra material which may or may not also be useful where the fact is controversial. I shall look at the unattributed quotations. Storye book (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added attributions in words to all the remaining quotations, except where the quotations were just one or two words. It doesn't look right to me, because the quotations are already cited at their ends, but I have done it since you asked, to keep the peace. Storye book (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Edit conflict. @Launchballer: (1) There are now no groups of more than three citations in the article. (2) Synth is about article content. It does not govern discussions on DYK templates, article talk pages or user talk pages. It is permissible to give one's opinion on DYK templates (how often have you seen the opinion "I don't like that hook"?) Neither is Synth about the grouping together of two or more references which support the relevant fact, and just so happen to contain extra material which may or may not also be useful where the fact is controversial. I shall look at the unattributed quotations. Storye book (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)