Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Croker-King


 * 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 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Croker-King

 * ... that Irish surgeon Samuel Croker-King (pictured) saved the life of the child who became the Duke of Wellington?
 * Reviewed: Donald Seldin

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 08:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, created day of nomination. Prose length of 2797 exceeds requirement of 1500.  Article written in neutral manner, and cites sources with inline citations.  Some of the phrasing is close to one original source, but the Cameron source, from 1886, is clearly public domain so there are no copyright violations.  Earwig only detects book titles, and no other copyvio issues found.  The hook is within policy and of interest to a general audience.  Hook fact is found in the article directly supported by inline citation, and source clearly supports the claim.  Image is licence as public domain.  Remaining issue:  QPQ needs to be completed.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * QPQ done now. thx Whispyhistory (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Well, that is interesting, a tag-team review of another DYK by this article's creators. Where's the rule on that?  Blast any rule, IAR and all that.  QPQ done.  This interesting article deserves mainpage exposure, all criteria now met.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 06:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Given the amount of copying from the PD source, this doesn't meet requirements for amount of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It just has to be text new to Wikipedia. The original PD source has since been extensively reworked as you can see if you compare the first and most recent versions. Here is the PD source. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have compared them, and that's not correct. See WP:DYKRULES 2b. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you exclude the quotes and verse? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotes and verse are copied from the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I made some copyedits to the article and compared it in Earwig to the source material which I pasted into a sandbox here excluding quotes and headings etc. This gave a match of 13% which was mainly names, so I think it is OK now. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1500-character specification is for original prose. While this is now not identical to the source, it would be a stretch to call it original. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If it were any more original it would break the rule against original research. Paraphrasing existing sources without crossing over into plagiarism is precisely what we are required to do. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two sentences which are close paraphrases of the original. ("His family was originally..." and "A Miss Jane King...")   Taking these out, and removing the 2 poems and the quote leaves a character count of 1808 without spaces or 2176 with spaces, which surpasses the requirement of 1500 characters of "original prose".   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 11:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I slightly reworded those two bits rather than remove them. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was ever a question of removing them, it is just a matter of whether or not it counts toward the DYK criteria.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Any updates? It's been over a month since the last comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No updates to my comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * nor to mine, I'm afraid.  I count 2176 characters of "original prose".  Perhaps this needs another reviewer, but it passes DYK requirements by my reckoning.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it has been ticked and has sufficient "original prose", why can't it be promoted? I don't see the need for a new review. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 's issues on original prose have not yet been addressed. This can't proceed unless she withdraws her objections. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. I directly addressed 's concerns.  I'm not sure if she's re-reviewed the article or not.  If so she disagrees with my assessment, which is her right.  Would it help if I created a formatted sandbox article showing how I conclude that the amount of "original prose" exceeds the 1.5k requirement?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, I have indeed re-reviewed the article, and remain of the opinion that with the extent of the close paraphrasing from the PD source, there is not sufficient original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yes please create the sandbox showing your calculation. Nominations shouldn't be blocked based on incorrect information. Frankly, I think an admin should just step in and promote this to stop further time being wasted. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done so. Please see the talk page of this nomination.  The character count of "original prose" is 1791 as calculated by this diff.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * . Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there you have it. I may not agree with 's analysis in this particular instance, but it doesn't mean she's wrong.  So now there's three ways forward, as I see it.  1)you could wait for a another reviewer 2)you could re-write the parts Nikkimaria has issues with 3)I could re-write this (I can easily see how), and since my review is all shot to hockey-sticks anyway....   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 04:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Or (4) you could add more original content from another source. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * New source found. Will expand. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * New material added on the Steevens' Hospital and his trepanning device of about 1800 characters.


 * ALT1... that Irish surgeon Samuel Croker-King designed a new trepanning device (pictured) for cutting into the human skull? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Now long enough and ready for re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article was new enough when nominated and is now long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I prefer ALT1 and its associated public domain image. I am not approving ALT0 which has augmented his role from crediting him with saving the life of the child to actually saving the life, which is not the same thing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)