- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Andrew Cudworth
edit- ...
that Andrew Cudworth divided diabetes into type 1 and type 2? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that Andrew Cudworth popularised the classification of diabetes into type 1 and type 2?
- Reviewed: John R. Seale
Created by 97198 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC).
- reviewing. In ,meantime @97198: please see [2] which appears to acknowledge someone else as originally coining type I and II. I'll look more closely later, but well done for creating. The hook is correct but article may need amending. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Whispyhistory: Good find, and thank you! None of the other sources mentioned Hugh-Jones but I will defer to this one. I have amended the article to clarify that Cudworth revived and popularised the terminology 20 years after Hugh-Jones first used it. 97198 (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
. Thank you for a constructive response back. Interesting, what gets into and what is left out of history books and often helpful to go back to a primary source to cross-reference. I found the 1955 paper [3] which notes type 1 and 2. The article on Cudworth is short and has room for much expansion, but is long enough for dyk. I hope you create more of these. Copyvio okay, new enough, QPQ done. Hook is in article and is followed by an inline citation which supports the hook. ?Hookiness and ?whether hook implies it was his idea. Could you maybe say he popularised the terminology or rediscovered type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Whispyhistory (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Whispyhistory: What do you think of ALT1 above? The wording feels a bit clunky to me but I'm not sure how to improve it. 97198 (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
. Yes..that fulfils criteria. @Philafrenzy: might help with a hookier hook, but otherwise okay. Thank you for persevering. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Alt1 looks good to me. isn't Hugh-Jones notable? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Actually should it be "into"? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- thanks...change to "into". Yes Hugh-Jones is notable. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)