Template:Did you know nominations/Heroic Medicine
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Article hasn't been edited since June; no attempt made to get it back to 5x expansion after deletions in April, and nominator hasn't edited since May
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Heroic Medicine[edit]
... that physicians using Heroic medicine in the 1800s commonly drained up to 80% of a patient's blood?- ALT1:
... that George Washington was treated with heroic medicine on his deathbed, complete with intensive bloodletting and purging?
- ALT1:
5x expanded by Cnpacyna (talk). Self-nominated at 04:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
This article wasn't created in the last 7 seven days (was created in 2003), hasn't been expanded more than 5x (it was 1264 characters before and 5014 after), hasn't been promoted to GA status and isn't a BLP requiring two fold expansion. Sorry but this doesn't qualify. — Calvin999 09:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cnpacyna and Calvin999: We usually allow a grace period to increase the length to the meet requirement. It needs 6,320 characters to be eligible, which is an addition of only about two or three paragraphs. If the nomnator or someone else is willing to add the extra text in the next two weeks or so, then this nomination can proceed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- The ping you sent didn't work, I only saw this by chance, not through an alert, so I've left a talk back on his page. — Calvin999 12:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999, Cnpacyna, and Antony-22: I thought this an interesting subject so I have added further information to the article so that I reckon it is now long enough for this nomination to proceed. Because I see that this is a student project, I have not altered the general prose but have just added two paragraphs to get it up to length. I am also adding my name to the credits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see why two hooks were given when they are basically one hook. The first one says about four quarts of blood but doesn't say it was George Washington who was drained from, and the second one mentions Washington but not that he had four quarts drained. I don't see why both can't be amalgamated into one hook, because surely it's more interesting that Washington had four quarts drained. It also doesn't say that in general that much was usually taken, only that Washington had that much drained. — Calvin999 14:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wahington only had four pints of blood removed. How about: - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see why two hooks were given when they are basically one hook. The first one says about four quarts of blood but doesn't say it was George Washington who was drained from, and the second one mentions Washington but not that he had four quarts drained. I don't see why both can't be amalgamated into one hook, because surely it's more interesting that Washington had four quarts drained. It also doesn't say that in general that much was usually taken, only that Washington had that much drained. — Calvin999 14:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999, Cnpacyna, and Antony-22: I thought this an interesting subject so I have added further information to the article so that I reckon it is now long enough for this nomination to proceed. Because I see that this is a student project, I have not altered the general prose but have just added two paragraphs to get it up to length. I am also adding my name to the credits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- The ping you sent didn't work, I only saw this by chance, not through an alert, so I've left a talk back on his page. — Calvin999 12:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that George Washington was treated with heroic medicine on his deathbed, being purged, blistered, and having four pints of blood removed?
ALT2. It better combines the orignial two suggestions more coherently. — Calvin999 11:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that George Washington was treated with heroic medicine on his deathbed, being purged, blistered, and having four pints of blood removed?
Hi, I came by to promote this, but in reading the article, noted that the last paragraph does not have any citation, per Rule D2. Additionally, the image has no licensing; perhaps it could be Fair Use, but it needs to be licensed on Commons before this goes to the main page. Finally, the citations credited to Weil do not all appear on the same page. It might be better to make a separate "Sources" section and do Harvard referencing for the page numbers; see WP:Citation templates. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi all! Thanks for your support and advice on the topic, I'm excited you're interested in heroic medicine as well. I've made the recommended changes, and while I did not change the citations to Harvard referencing, I did update the references to have accurate page numbers.
- - Cnpacyna (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with image licensing , but this doesn't look right, to put a Creative Commons license on an 1804 image. @The Rambling Man: could you help here? Thanks , Yoninah (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine. The Wellcome Library, owners of 100ks of images, including this one, released tons of them under the CC-BY license, as reflected on the image page. Further information can be found here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, The Rambling Man. Everything looks fine now. Restoring tick per Calvin999's review. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm pulling this back for basic verifiability failures -- we can debate Andrew Weil's status as a source for current medicine, but for the history of medicine, forget it. More later when I've got a big keyboard. EEng 10:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's even a small stretch for someone who knows about current medicine to know about the history of medicine. It seems to me that they would need to know all about it from their field of study. SL93 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- That would be a very convincing argument if it weren't completely false. The history of medicine is a minor or nonexistent part of most medical curricula, and most physicians know little or nothing about it beyond the usual bits about Hippocrates, Galen, Harvey, and Fleming. There are high-quality scholarly sources on Washington's death and the treatment he received, so there's no reason to use a pop book by an doctor who might charitably be said to be considered a hack even by advocates of fringe therapies. (There are additional serious problems -- especially tone-- with the article beyond the Washington bit, but I gotta run now. I'll address them tomorrow.) EEng 06:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's even a small stretch for someone who knows about current medicine to know about the history of medicine. It seems to me that they would need to know all about it from their field of study. SL93 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- EEng's subsequent deletions left this article with 5145 prose characters when 6320 were needed, 1175 short of a 5x expansion. The nomination was not restored to the nominations page when it was pulled from prep, which left it in limbo. Pinging all those who were involved here: nominator Cnpacyna, expander Cwmhiraeth, reviewers Antony-22, Calvin999, and Yoninah, commenter on image matters The Rambling Man, and other commenter SL93. If the article can be expanded and the other issues dealt with (including a bare URL), then I imagine the next step is to restore this to the nominations page; if it cannot grow with authoritatively sourced material then this page should probably be closed. Thank you for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has not been edited since the above and remains too short to qualify, with no response from anyone who was pinged. I see no option but to mark this for final closure as unsuccessful; the original nominator has not edited on Wikipedia for six months, and none of the DYK regulars have stepped in again since EEng made his deletions. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)