Template:Did you know nominations/Peruna (patent medicine)

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| 
 * 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}}

Peruna (patent medicine)

 * ... that the patent medicine Peruna was so popular in the early 20th century that babies were named after it? Source: "cited in article
 * ALT1:... that Peruna, the mascot of Southern Methodist University, was named after a popular patent medicine? Source: "cited in arcticle
 * ALT2:... that during Prohibition in the United States, patent medicines such as Peruna were used as a source of alcohol?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

Created/expanded by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article meets DYK requirements, hook facts are cited inline, QPQ done. I think the first hook probably appeals best to a general audience. However, ALT0's citation comes not in the sentence that discusses it, but the one after; DYK rules require the actual hook fact sentence to have the relevant inline citation. In addition, Earwigs detects a large overlap with this page, which in turn appears to be a copy of our article on Adams. Both issues need to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * cited. Some of the article was copied from Adams. Is that a problem? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See Copying within Wikipedia for details. In any case, it feels that the similarities are too close for comfort, especially since I don't think this article is a split from Adams's article; this would have been more acceptable if the latter was the case Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I attributed it in my edit summary which according to WP:Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable. "If material has been contributed by more than one author, providing a link in the edit summary is the simplest method of providing attribution. A statement in the edit summary such as copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution will direct interested parties to the edit history of the source page, where they can trace exactly who added what content when." Additionally i have just used the template copied on the talk page. I will happily withdraw the dyk nomination however because the text isn't original. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, content copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia can't be used to meet the 5x expansion qualification. I am unsure how (or if) that factors into created articles. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I recall about the rules, if a new article was based on split content, it would only meet the 5x requirement if the original (i.e. non-copied content) met the 5x requirement. In any case, I'm going to ping here as she's the expert when it comes to article expansion requirements. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The relevant rule is A5: if the split content is more than 7 days old, it has to be expanded 5x with new material. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Nearly half of the current article was copied from the Adams article; based on this check using the Duplication Detector, it's at least 903 prose characters copied from Adams out of a total of 1867 in the Peruna article. As noted above, the copied material, being well over seven days old, needs to be expanded 5x, which would require 4515 prose characters, another 2648 beyond what's there now. This is probably impractical, but Eddie891 can let us know whether it might be feasible. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, which is why I mentioned that I will happily withdraw on 22 July Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Eddie891, sorry, I missed that among all the other text. Thanks for your patience; I'm marking this nomination as withdrawn and closing it, along with the rest of this edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |}}