Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Watt Kay

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 Yoninah (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Watt Kay

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Andrew Watt Kay's paper describing the augmented histamine test was the single most cited paper in the British Medical Journal between 1945 and 1989? Source: Laing (2011).

• Reviewed: Donald Mackintosh (shooter)

Moved to mainspace by Iainmacintyre (talk). Self-nominated at 10:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC).

• Article new enough (moved to mainspace on 23 November), long enough (3,460), NPOV, no obvious close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyvio, inline citations to reliable references. Hook short enough and interesting. Adequate QPQ.
• In terms of issues, "He studied the secretion of gastric acid, thought at that time to be the most important factor in the development of duodenal ulcers" is not supported by the refs given especially the bit about it being considered the most important factor.
• "This test became known as Kay's augmented histamine test", it would useful to have ref showing that someone else used that term than his own paper.
• "widely used in the investigation and treatment of peptic ulcer" in the lead is not mentioned later in the article with an reference supporting that his eponymous test was used for this purpose by others widely.
• "which was at that time a major clinical problem in Western societies" is not verified by the reference, and I would argue that PUD is still a major clinical problem. Cowlibob (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks @Cowlibob: for that review and helpful suggestions.
• I've addressed the 4 issues you raise

• 1.Citation added Y 2.Citation added Y 3.Added into text as suggested and cited Y 4. Point taken. Removed 'at that time' and added citation. Yes agree - still a major problem despite declining incidence.Y Papamac (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the above amendments. Good to go. Hook verified by The Herald reference. Cowlibob (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the cite for the hook fact is talking about a "keynote paper" on "duodenal ulcers", not an "original paper" on the "augmented histamine test". Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks @Yoninah: for pointing that out. I have corrected the sources in the article. The sources for the hook should indeed be Kay and Scotsman. Papamac (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring tick. Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)