Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Amdur
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mary Amdur[edit]
- ... that Mary Amdur gassed her own guinea pigs to prove that breathing sulphuric acid was dangerous?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Clovelly Lifeboat Station (by Staceydolxx)
5x expanded by Staceydolxx (talk) and Worm That Turned (talk). Nominated by Worm That Turned (talk) at 18:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
Article has been expanded five-fold recently and is long enough. It is well written and uses inline citations at least at the end of the paragraph. The hook is interesting and of suitable length, however it is not cited sufficiently. The following sentence does not have an inline citation at the end: "In the middle of 1953, Mary and her husband developed a method of spraying sulphuric acid mist into humid chambers containing guinea pigs to investigate the damage that the mist would cause on the lungs.". I would presume it is sourced from Musil, Robert, K. but I cannot access it to verify, so please use an inline citation. The other thing I noticed (and this isn't a criteria for DYK) is the use of the spelling in sulphuric acid. It seems very odd, as I don't think this version is accepted in any form of the English language. QPQ and copyvio checks out well. Jolly Ω Janner 03:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jolly Janner,that's no problem, both it and the following sentence are sourced from Musil, so I've just added an inline cite. I'm happy with either spelling for sulphuric acid, that's the spelling I grew up with, but it's been a while - it's a blue link and mentioned in the article for a reason, but I'm not precious about it. If you do make the change though, please change it on the article too, it would jar if it's written one way in the hook and differently in the article without good reason. WormTT(talk) 07:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The hook is now appropriately backed up with an inline cite. I didn't realise the book had a preview option available at first, so I have also been able to verify it myself. I will leave the spelling issue for now and perhaps if it is important enough someone else will make adjustments. Jolly Ω Janner 07:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jolly Janner,that's no problem, both it and the following sentence are sourced from Musil, so I've just added an inline cite. I'm happy with either spelling for sulphuric acid, that's the spelling I grew up with, but it's been a while - it's a blue link and mentioned in the article for a reason, but I'm not precious about it. If you do make the change though, please change it on the article too, it would jar if it's written one way in the hook and differently in the article without good reason. WormTT(talk) 07:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
