Template:Did you know nominations/John Edgcumbe


 * 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 PFHLai (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

John Edgcumbe

 * ... that Devon's first consultant haematologist, John Edgcumbe, was a collateral descendant of Joshua Reynolds and co-edited The Letters of Sir Joshua Reynolds (pictured)?


 * ALT1:... that the medical practitioner John Edgcumbe was a collateral descendant of Joshua Reynolds?
 * ALT2:... that John Edgcumbe was the first consultant haematologist in Devon?
 * Reviewed: Fertility factor (demography)
 * Comment: I understand that we often avoid wikilinking to poor articles, but lineal descendant contains a section on "collateral descent", which is referenced. We don't have a Wiktionary article on the term either.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Jolly Janner (talk) at 03:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is long enough and new enough. Approving ALT2 but not the other two hooks because the "collateral descendant" fact is not referenced (I will leave another editor to disprove the claim, made in the BMJ obituary, that he was the first consultant haematologist in Devon). The image is not needed for ALT2, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think the British Medical Journal were an excellent source for the medical claim? I can't think of a better one. I have just referenced the collateral descendant claim. Can you tick the other hooks now? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg All three hooks are now satisfactory and the image is in the public domain. As for the "first" claim, the British Medical Journal is an excellent source in the field of medicine, but not necessarily in the more limited sphere of the first consultant in a given speciality in a given area. However, I see no reason to doubt that the claim is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)