- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Anatomy
edit
... that in Anatomy (lesson pictured), Galen's second-century drawings became effectively the only textbook available for the next 1000 years?
- Reviewed: Bibi Amtus Salam
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk), Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 05:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC).
- Article expansion looks excellent but can somebody confirm it is a full x5 expansion?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
For some reason DYKcheck does not pop up for this article. I looked at the history, and taking expansion start date at 22 June 2013 (considering that this was nommed on the 27th), it does not look like a 5x expansion. To make it 5x, I presume that the article should have around 48405 bytes. It currently doesn't. I have to say though, it's a great expansion effort. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have added a bit more and I reckon it's a 5x expansion now, 4282 B --> 23 K. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Mm, real sorry, but I don't. Because like I said, it should (if I'm not wrong) be some 48405 bytes in order to pass as 5x. As it stands now, it's still 43000++ bytes. And furthermore, there's a "Disamb" tag present. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have added a bit more and I reckon it's a 5x expansion now, 4282 B --> 23 K. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Outside Comment- Looking at the article's history, it looks like expansion started on the 23rd so going from the June 19th version of the article (the last "pre-expansion" version) it was at 4282 B (630 words) "readable prose size" according to the page size tool on the side bar. That would make a 5x expansion needing to get to at least 21,410 bytes of prose. Today the article is at 26 kB (4195 words) "readable prose size" which more than qualifies from an expansion angle. Whether the article passes other DYK criteria, I can't comment on at this moment. AgneCheese/Wine 17:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Agne27: this is a valid 5x expansion. Expansion is measured by prose characters, not by bytes: DYKcheck gives the current prose size as 26193, and the prose size prior to the start of expansion at 4282 prose characters, so this is a greater than 6x expansion. There are no dates I could find within the last couple of months, or even the last year, that had an article prose size large enough to cause any issues with 5x. DYKcheck appears to have managed to pick up on a years-old edit—quickly reversed—that added a large amount of junk to the article, putting it briefly at over 20Kb of "prose". This aberration can safely be ignored by the ultimate reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The hook looks ambiguous to me because it suggests the word "anatomy" is referring to a book of that name. Suggested alt:
*ALT1: ... that Galen's second-century drawings (example pictured) became effectively the only available textbook on anatomy for the next 1000 years?
- The suggested ALT1 is confusing because "example pictured" says that this is one of Galen's drawings, while it's a seventeenth-century painting that has nothing to do with Galen. It's difficult to use a Galen hook with a non-Galen image... The original hook wasn't very successful in finessing this problem, and "anatomy" should not be capitalized since it isn't a proper noun. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- How about these? (I have changed the image from the one originally nominated) - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the study of modern human anatomy is considered to have been founded by Andreas Vesalius (anatomical drawing pictured)?
- ALT3: ... that the study of modern human anatomy is considered to have been founded by Andreas Vesalius (anatomical drawing pictured) in the sixteenth century?
- Full review needed, encompassing new ALT hooks and new image, plus all the usual DYK checks, though the 5x expansion is fine per above. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations on a fine article – a courageous article expansion! I'll preface my review by stating that much of the text is cited to learned professional texts for which there is no url, so I'm obliged to assume good faith. In content terms, the article seems accurate according to my limited knowledge of the subject matter. It's also well focussed and structured, and the prose is written to a high standard. There is no copying of content from other related articles that I could find. I have some minor concerns concerning the possible mis-apposed citations, principally the second paragraph of the first section viz: "The discipline of anatomy is subdivided into gross or macroscopic anatomy and microscopic anatomy" – where I find no specific mention of the gross divisions although their existence is clearly implied. I'd also query the use of a commercial site (and questionable RS) as a citation – see ref #37 – I don't doubt a replacement citation would be sufficiently easy to find.
As to the hook, the article is on generic "anatomy" and not human anatomy. Also, the assertion that "Andreas Vesalius ... is considered the founder of modern human anatomy" is uncited although it is the opening statement in the biography (also uncited). Subject to the foregoing concerns, I would happily promote this article as DYK fit. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am working on the points you mention above.
- With regard to the DYK nomination, I have added a reference for the phrase "founder of modern human anatomy". I think you will find that a hook need not represent the article in general but can refer to a single fact that is present and referenced (which it now is) in the article even if it is only one small aspect of the topic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm afraid that the citation to the Peak Research Institute shares the same problem as its predecessor – it's clearly a commercial site. The Warwick University link is a press release (primary source), but I think is acceptable use under the circumstances.
I won't comment further on the cite for the hook, but will leave it to others more experienced in such matters. Consider my remark on same an observation rather than a concern. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm afraid that the citation to the Peak Research Institute shares the same problem as its predecessor – it's clearly a commercial site. The Warwick University link is a press release (primary source), but I think is acceptable use under the circumstances.
- Still needs a full review of normal DYK criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
From this version, the article has been more than five times expanded (whether using charcount or wordcount) based on this. Other than citation of the hook (now done – see above), I believe this is the only part of the review outstanding. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
