Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Richards (surgeon)


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Solomon Richards (surgeon)

 * ... that Irish surgeon Solomon Richards (died 1819) acquired achieved fame by performing a tracheotomy in public?
 * ALT1: ... that Solomon Richards was said to be the fattest surgeon in the United Kingdom, requiring him to enter his carriage sideways?
 * Reviewed: Cauca molly
 * Comment: Alt might be a bit negative but he has been dead for nearly 200 years.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 10:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I prefer hook 1. Would suggest removing the date of death; I don't think it adds to the hook, and even if this was an early notable tracheotomy, I'd imagine performing one in public is a somewhat notable event in itself (regardless of date). Anyhow... WP:DYKCHECK says all is good, and I've added a new citation to further reference the hook.  HOWEVER... it seems that the article prose is lifted directly from  (Cameron 1886). The source is obviously public domain, and there are a number of citations to the work (so it's not as if it's WP:PLAGIARISM).  I'd be happy to pass this once there's been a second opinion, if someone wouldn't mind.  MIDI (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it was as acknowledged in the edit history but its been fairly heavily edited since then. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I've also added Template:PD-notice to the Cameron reference, so I'm happy. Given that this acknowledges the text used verbatim in the article, I'd be happy to approve this one, either with or without the date of death (perhaps a matter of personal preference; as above, I think it's superfluous but no dealbreaker!). MIDI (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Not enough original prose to met the 1500-character minimum. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done some more copyediting and am getting low similarity with the PD source once quotes and titles are excluded. Note there is a large piece of verse that is of course identical. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note though that close paraphrasing of PD sources is also excluded from the prose count. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any close paraphrasing. Please give an example that isn't a quote, job or institution title, street name or poem. The original PD text is here for use in Earwig if you haven't already made that comparison. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "grew so wealthy that he was able to purchase considerable estates in the counties of Dublin and Wicklow. In 1812, he won a prize of £10,000" vs "amassed so much money that that he was enabled to purchase considerable landed properties in the Counties of Dublin and Wicklow. In 1812 he won a lottery prize of £10,000". Because the original text is PD this isn't a copyright concern, but keep in mind more broadly that Earwig's tool cannot catch close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed and has been slightly expanded too. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nikkimaria's comments here—we're still at close paraphrasing. It's still clear, when reading the article, that the text has been copied verbatim (although with appropriate PD template/refs etc.) but with minor changes to the odd word—the sentence structure is the same as the source. For example (bold to show changes):
 * ARTICLE: Richards was apprenticed to James Boyton, of St Andrew Street, an assistant surgeon to Dr Steevens' Hospital. After the end of his apprenticeship in April 1781, he travelled to London, Edinburgh, and Paris, to study under the foremost teachers of his time.
 * SOURCE: He was apprenticed to James Boyton, of St. Andrew-street, an Assistant-Surgeon to Steevens' Hospital. His apprenticeship having terminated in April, 1781, he proceeded to London, Edinburgh, and Paris, and studied under the most eminent teachers of the day.
 * At WP:DYKRULES, rule 2B states "DYK articles may freely reuse public domain text [...] with proper attribution. However [...] text copied verbatim [...] or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count". We still have close paraphrasing of a PD source, so until this is resolved I don't see this DYK nom progressing. MIDI (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The current expanded article includes material from a wide variety of sources and is far from verbatim with the odd change. The objection is that it is too close to the Cameron source but the current version also includes significant material from Burke, O'Brien, University College Dublin and others. The Cameron text is here and the article text minus quotes etc I pasted here to see it in isolation. An Earwig comparison shows only a 12.3% match. To the extent that there is still a similar structure I think that is inevitable for the parts where there is only one source to paraphrase from. To depart any further from the source risks straying into OR or giving a new meaning not intended by the original author. That does not constitute close paraphrasing, it represents respecting the integrity of the original meaning while rewriting it as far as is safe. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg As the creator of Earwig has said many times, low percentages do not mean there is no close paraphrasing; indeed, I've found unacceptable examples down at 9%. MIDI demonstrated above that there is still very clear close paraphrasing, and none of it can count toward the 1500 prose character minimum. If Nikkimaria still thinks this does not meet the 1500 requirement excluding the copied and/or closely paraphrased Cameron material, then I don't see how the nomination can proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It's pretty close to having enough, so I imagine it wouldn't be beyond reach to have it qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Philafrenzy, if you are prepared to add more original prose to the article, it appears that it can qualify here at DYK. Additional edits to the Cameron material are not what's needed at this point. Please let us know whether you plan to make such edits. As it currently stands, there are apparently fewer than 1500 original prose characters (i.e., neither copied nor closely paraphrased), and that is not sufficient for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a section on his apprentices and one on his treatment of syphilis that total around 1,000 characters as well as some more on the tracheotomy. That should be enough to push it over the line. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 24 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 I agree that there's really no close paraphrasing left here. The page creator has done a good job of rewriting and reorganizing the presentation to make it a stand-alone article. ALT0 is verified and cited inline. All other criteria check out. ALT0 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)