Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Wade (surgeon)

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Henry Wade (surgeon)

(

)

Sir Henry Wade

~~... that Sir Henry Wade (pictured) saved the leg of Norman Dott who then became an innovative surgeon too?~~

Reviewed: Onesimus Ustonson
Comment: The hook facts can be verified at Lothian Health Services Archive. The article was written for the BHSM event.

Created by Iainmacintyre (talk) and Axxter99 (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 19:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC).

@Andrew Davidson, Iainmacintyre, and Axxter99: New and long enough, QPQ done, Earwig detects no copyvios (but all of the sources are offline). I'm concerned that 8 of the 13 references are papers by Wade himself, which runs afoul of point 5 of WP:SELFPUB; there need to be more third-party sources. The "Urological surgeon", "Marriage", and "Death" sections lack references. Also, is it reasonable to call him a "pioneer cancer researcher" when his theory about cancer was incorrect? I think it's a good job at writing an article about an interesting subject, but it needs a wider variety of sources. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Points well taken. I have added citations , mainly from BMJ Obituary available online. He is not remembered for his erroneous cancer theory so that has been deleted. Thanks Papamac (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, Iainmacintyre, and Axxter99: I'd still like to see at least one secondary source per paragraph. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, Iainmacintyre, and Axxter99: Pinging. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite busy with other commitments this week, alas. I might get to it next week. Andrew D. (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been through the article, checking its citations. I have checked that there's at least one secondary source per paragraph – in most cases, it's a reference to one of the obituaries. I fixed up the one case of a {{citation needed}}. I reckon it's reasonably good now but, if more seems needed, please identify the specific passage. Andrew D. (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As this nomination has been hanging round for some time, I will finish the review. The article is long enough and was nominated in good time. The hook is interesting and the facts are cited inline. The article is neutral, seems to be adequately cited and is free of copyvios, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but don't see anything written in the article about Dott being an "innovative" surgeon. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Below is an alt idea. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Sir Henry Wade (pictured) saved the leg of Norman Dott, who then became a surgeon too?

Or this one? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

ALT2: ~~... that Sir Henry Wade (pictured) saved the leg of teenage Norman Dott, inspiring him to change his career from engineering to surgery?~~

It's not possible to infer the ALT2 hook fact from the sentence in the article, so I'll pass on that. ALT1 is succinct and hooky; offline ref AGF and cited inline. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)