Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard Pernkopf

Eduard Pernkopf

 * ... that anatomist Eduard Pernkopf, who expelled Jewish faculty from the University of Vienna medical school after the Anschluss, was given space by a Jewish physician after the war to finish his anatomical atlas?
 * Reviewed: Invercargill by-election, 1930
 * Comment: I'm thinking this could run on November 24, the subject's 125th birthday. I ask any reviewer to put it down at the bottom of the page in the special occasion holding area and create a subsection for November 24.

5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk), CFCF (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 19:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Fine and interesting article. Unfortuntaly, we didn't reach to review in time to the 125 year jubilee, as can be seen. The article is nominated within five days after a five-fold expansion. A variety of good inline-cited sources are used. Spotchecks didn't reveal significant close paraphrasing issues. The hook is interesting, but the latter part (given space by a Jewish physician) is not inline-cited as I can see. The whole paragraph starting "His former facilities" in the "Later years" lacks inline citation. As a sidenote, I am sure "later years" is a good headline, as he worked with the atlas also in these years; "later years" to me indicate the years after the main career has ended. In the 2Controversial legacy and debate over continued use" section one paragraph starts "It has been suggested". Here it should be precised who the suggestion was made by. As for the claim " its usage cannot be excluded from at least 800 images of the atlas", this seems like it might be referenced to ref 10, but I would like to see an inline citation with exact page number. The controversy section appears accurate and neutral, due to time I cannot check and consider everything in it. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Added inline cite for Hoff claim.
 * I made "it has been suggested" into something a little more specific. And I added a source at least reporting that claim. Frankly, though, since the allegation seems to have been convincingly rebutted, do we need to go into such great detail about who was making it? None of the sources seem to.
 * I added the page number, 91. It's in Hildebrandt's abstract. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. The "fact" in the hook is in this case two facts mentioned two different places in the text, but I hope that's ok, because it's an interesting hook and there isn't in my view a synthesis problem. Both facts are sourced (and the source mentions both facts). I may well be nitpicking to much in this review (Re."it has been suggested) and some others; I am somewhat unsure how thorough and strict I have to be in the DYK reviews. But now, good to go, imo. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)