Talk:Paradise of Wisdom

Did you know nomination

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 RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Paradise of Wisdom, an early Islamic medical encyclopedia, talks about an abortion-causing stone?
  • ALT1: ... that the Paradise of Wisdom is one of the earliest Islamic medical encyclopedias?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/R.I.P. (Rita Ora song)

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 23:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... LordPeter2go (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - some inconsistencies

QPQ: Done.

Overall: There are some inconsistencies about the second hook and the article:

• The short descriptions says "First medical encyclopedia in Arabic"
• The article says "first all-inclusive medical compendium" and "one of the earliest Islamic medical encyclopedias"
• The hook ALT1 says "one of the earliest Islamic medical encyclopedias"

So it seems like ALT1 is accurate, and just the short description not (note also that there's a difference between "Arabic" and "Islamic"). In any case, I much prefer ALT0 because it talks about some of the content, as opposed to a "one of the earliest" claim which isn't that exciting. LordPeter2go (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. There are many sources that say "earliest" Islamic/Arabic encyclopedia as well as others that more cautiously state "one of..." If it was indeed the earliest, then it's also necessarily the case that it's one of the earliest. I just didn't want to complicate things by tediously listing what various sources claim, so just deferred to the broadest claim - there isn't really a contradiction. Anyhow I prefer the original hook too. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Alright, then I'll just approve ALT0 and strike ALT1 (not as inaccurate, just somewhat boring). –LordPeterII (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)