Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Powel Griffitts
Appearance
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Samuel Powel Griffitts
- ... that Benjamin Rush advised Samuel Powel Griffitts, as part of his European medical training, to take three months of dancing lessons? Source: "Whitfield J. Bell, 1943, page 6 "Rush recommended that .. Griffitts attend lectures on natural philosophy as well as on medical subjects...and spend an hour daily for three months on dancing lessons."
- ALT1:... that Philadelphia physician Samuel Powel Griffitts (1759–1826) was the nephew of Philadelphia mayor Samuel Powel (1738–1793)? Source:Whitfield J. Bell, 1997, page 268 "Three weeks later, Powel himself was down with the [yellow] fever...his nephew Samuel Powel Griffitts, now a doctor, stayed with him night and day, but his case was fatal and at six o'clock in the morning of 29 September [1793] he died"
- Reviewed: Granny (sea anenome)
Created by MAHosieAPS (talk) and HouseOfChange (talk). Nominated by HouseOfChange (talk) at 19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC).
Article was created in Mainspace on June 8. Granted, it was moved to drafts for cleanup nearly two months later. The article has not been expanded by 5x since then, only about 2.5x. I don't think this meets newness if you look at either original publication date or expansion. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- BuySomeApples, The article that was moved to draftspace was about 2,200 bytes.[1], with multiple errors of fact (which have now been corrected), no claim of notability, and only one reference. The article moved to mainspace on August 6 is essentially a new article. Please compare the two articles and reconsider its eligibility. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Given the fact the article was completely WP:TNTed and rewritten within the draft space, and then moved back, and then renominated within seven days of the move, I think we should give leeway to the OP. Even if we weren't to do that, this would still pass under the "not exactly" rule–we don't have to strictly enforce the seven days rule if the creation/expansion date was after the oldest current nomination (currently May 17). But come on, this article really only has a connection in the narrowest possible sense. It's basically a new article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Theleekycauldron for agreeing that this interesting article should be eligible for DYK. How do I ask for a second review? Or is it permanently torpedoed from DYK unless BuySomeApples agrees with your assessment? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @HouseOfChange: I'd say that you should give BuySomeApples some time to respond—if they don't respond, or refuse to budge, you should request a second review then. You can do this with by using the symbol encoded with
{{subst:DYK?again}}
.@HouseOfChange: Sorry for not replying as soon as you commented, but I had to sleep and do some stuff before checking on this. A rejection doesn't "permanently torpedo" the nom's chances. I'll let someone else do a second review on this one since it was significantly improved before being moved back out of drafts. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @HouseOfChange: I'd say that you should give BuySomeApples some time to respond—if they don't respond, or refuse to budge, you should request a second review then. You can do this with by using the symbol encoded with
- Thank you, Theleekycauldron for agreeing that this interesting article should be eligible for DYK. How do I ask for a second review? Or is it permanently torpedoed from DYK unless BuySomeApples agrees with your assessment? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@BuySomeApples: Thanks for your reply and for kindly asking for another review. Yes,
it was significantly improved before being moved back out of draftsand I am the person who was improving it there, correcting many errors and adding more than 4,000 bytes of text and footnotes. On August 6, to my surprise, another editor moved the article from draft to mainspace. I continued to improve it. I don't think my having done substantial work to improve the article while it was in draftspace should disqualify it from DYK. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- This article now needs a full review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: It's been two weeks and no one else has taken this, so I guess I'll do a full review. Article is long enough, sourced and no copyvio. Hook is cited and interesting (I'd love to think that the dance class really did make him a better doctor). qpq is done so this nom's ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)