Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Eliza Maltby

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by RoySmith talk 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Eliza Maltby

Maltby with her son Philip Randolph Meyer, home from flight training at Kelly Field, circa 1918.
Maltby with her son Philip Randolph Meyer, home from flight training at Kelly Field, circa 1918.
  • Source: In 2014, Autosomal DNA tests indicated that Philip Randolph Meyer was Maltby's natural son. He was born in June 1897, six months after Maltby's sudden resignation from Wellesley College. When Maltby returned to a research position in Germany in 1898, she left her son in the care of a friend who had a nursery. Upon taking up a post at Barnard College in 1901, Maltby reunited with Meyer. (Gill, Raymond (Spring–Summer 2016). "Genetics & Genealogy - Miss Maltby and Her Ward: Using DNA to Investigate a Family Mystery". American Ancestors. 17 (2): 49–52.)
  • ALT1: ... that in 1895 Margaret Eliza Maltby became the first woman to earn a PhD in physics in Germany? Source: Margaret Maltby earned her PhD in physics in 1895 at the University of Göttingen. [1]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Sorry for the probable poor formatting of the source, my first time trying this!
Improved to Good Article status by Physhist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Physhist (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC).

  • I can take this on. This'll be my first review as well, but I think I should be able to handle it! As such though, per WP:DYKRI, I'd like a second opinion (bolding just for emphasis to those scrolling by).
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: Yes
  • Used in article: Yes
  • Clear at 100px: No - With two people, Maltby (who should be the subject) is a bit hard to make out imo. May I suggest cropping the image, or using the image in the infobox instead?
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Very nice hooks! Unfortunately, I have quite a few concerns about sourcing in both the hooks and the article itself. For ALT1, I cannot access the complete source, however the excerpt provided only supports that Maltby earned her PhD in Germany, not that she was the first woman to do so. As for ALT0, the listed excerpt does not explicitly mention that she "hid the birth" of her son, nor does it say that she "re-adopted" him (I'm not sure if that can be conflated with "reunited"). Is there a different source which is more specific?

As for checks in the article itself, most of the sources are offline/paywalled, so I'm assuming good faith. Source #4 says that Maltby was the "first American woman allowed to take a degree" at the university, but it does not seem to support that she was the first woman overall to earn a Ph.D. in Germany. Source #25 should probably not be attributed to Encyclopedia.com, but rather to Women in World History: A Biographical Encyclopedia in line with the page's source (and at that, the source does not support the passage written in the article saying that Maltby received a star in her listing within the AMS). The article could also do with a slight copyedit, with some grammatical errors (quite a few missing commas and some choppy wording here and there) and citation numbers in the wrong order. Sorry that that's a lot, hopefully you're up for it! Leafy46 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If we don't have rock-solid evidence that anything "first" is certain, we should not consider such a hook. These claims end up at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors way too often. Schwede66 04:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Behrman 2020 has all of this info, but that is a self citation so I'd prefer not to use that. I probably don't have time to fix the errors in the article very quickly, so feel free to withdraw this nomination if it needs to be done quickly. Physhist (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)