Template:Did you know nominations/Jeffrey Rosenfeld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeffrey Rosenfeld

  • ... that Australian neurosurgeon Jeffrey Rosenfeld led the team developing a wireless device that promises to give limited vision to the totally blind? Source: "it could one day help restore vision in those suffering from untreatable blindness." ... "The system... consists of custom headgear with a built-in camera, a wireless transmitter" ... and later it specifies that he is "lead author of the study, Professor Jeffrey Rosenfeld". [1]
    • ALT1: ... that in his spare time, Australian neurosurgeon Jeffrey Rosenfeld volunteers his services to offer first aid to spectators at the football? Source: “In his spare time, Jeffrey Rosenfeld would have to be one of the most highly qualified St John Ambulance volunteers to offer emergency first aid to spectators at the footy.” [2]
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eberhard Zeidler

Moved to mainspace by Gronk Oz (talk). Self-nominated at 08:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Comments by Tbhotch

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - See below
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Gronk Oz: A new and long-enough article. Both hooks are 'unsourced' (for the purposes of this DYK, see WP:DYKCRIT 3b). Both are interesting, but I find the first one a better option. However, the hook doesn't reflect what the article says (i.e. "His team has developed an artificial vision system", not him. The source further confirms that he is just the leader, not the main author). Two sources are marked by Earwig as "Violation Possible" but they are just his credentials, quotations, and other proper names.

Other minor issues: The info about Molly Meldrum is misplaced as it is not about research. I left a tag that has to be resolved. (CC) Tbhotch 00:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Tbhotch. I have updated Hook 1 to clarify that his is the leader of the team. But I'm afraid I can't see why the second hook is "unsourced" - can you please explain how it falls short? Or go with Hook 1; I also prefer that one.
On the other issues, I see what you say about the Meldrum bit. When I looked for a better place for it, there really wasn't anywhere for his general clinical work. And I realized that a lot of his research was inextricably tied in with clinical work, and I don't think it makes sense to try and separate them - so instead I changed the heading to "Clinical and research". I hope that doesn't sound like cheating, but I can't see a cleaner way to divide it up. I hope that resolves that concern, but let me know if you feel differently.
Finally, you said that you "left a tag that has to be resolved." I must be blind; I have looked over and over but I can't find the tag. Where is it?--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Gronk Oz, The DYK criteria says. 3b: "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." There are sources, but those sources don't appear after the fact at the end of the sentence. The "The conventional surgical approach was to access the brain from below, because the tumour is closer to the bottom; Rosenfeld's novel approach was to access it from above, using a microscope to navigate down between the brain's hemispheres." fact is not mentioned by source 3. (CC) Tbhotch 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: now I am more confused than ever. Hook 2 is supported by Reference 10, which is at the end of that sentence (second paragraph under "Personal Life").
That quote you give is nothing to do with either of the hooks, so it is not required to have support at the end of the sentence. It is supported by Reference 15, at the end of that paragraph. That source is not freely available online; I accessed it through the Wikipedia Library. But regardless of that, I am struggling to understand how it relates to the hook, as you are saying.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
For the effects of any DYK nomination, the article is required to have a citation at the end of the sentence related to the hook. It doesn't matter that the citation is already present at the end of the paragraphs. All I'm asking you to do is this. (CC) Tbhotch 22:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: I still don't follow why you want a citation on that sentence, which is nothing to do with the hook. That sentence is about how his surgical technique differs from what came before, whereas the hook is about him volunteering to provide First Aid - nothing to do with it. All you did was to add the same citation twice for the same paragraph - not a problem, but unnecessary. As you said, a citation "is required to have a citation at the end of the sentence related to the hook". Note the emphasized bit - the only sentences which require individual citations are the ones related to the hook. That sentence is not related to the hook. The sentence that is related to the hook already had a citation. What am I missing here? --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry, I did it for you. All this time I was talking about the sentence related to the hook, but somehow you assumed I was talking about something else. Approved ALT0 now that the article meets the criteria. (CC) Tbhotch 19:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting the main hook (ALT0) to Prep 7Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)