Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte Roberts
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Charlotte Roberts
edit- ... that the bioarchaeologist Charlotte Roberts once worked as a nurse on a burns unit?
- ALT1:... that Charlotte Roberts, a bioarchaeologist who specialises in the archaeology of diseases, is a member of the WI?
5x expanded by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk). Self-nominated at 19:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC).
Article was expanded from 385 chars more than 5x to 2,705 chars, and is so long enough. It is neutral and cites sources inline. Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports a rate of 30.6%for ref #1, however, copyvio is not observed. The ref #2's rate is 20.6%, and there are parts directly overtaken. Other refs show no copyvio issues. Both hooks are well formatted. Original hook is interesting. I cannot check "burns unit"'s ref #3 at original hook because not available to me. I don't know what is "WI" at ALT1. So both hooks fail for me. QPQ was not provided yet. I can approve after above issues are addressed. Please be patient if I cannot respond very quick. CeeGee 16:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review CeeGee, but I'm having trouble understanding it. I assume this is because of my dyslexia combining with English not being your first language (from what I can tell from your user-page). Could you please explain what "copyvio is not observed" and "parts directly overtaken" mean? I was quite shocked when I got to the "both hooks fail for me" part of your review.
- Having looked at Earwig's Copyvio Detector myself, the issues it has picked up are things that can't be reworded; eg the books she has written ("Burial archaeology: current research, methods, and developments" ect) or a title she has held (President of the Paleopathology Association). WI stands for Women's Institute; this is known in the UK, but I've wrongly assumed this was common elsewhere. The WI is associated with cake baking, flower arranging, and old ladies, hence it is a contrast for someone who's day job is studying skeletons. Would adding a link be a good compromise tot his confusion or would you prefer changing it to the full name? Here's the relevant quote from ref3: "Staff Nurse, Burns Unit, St Lawrence Hosp., Chepstow, 1979". I shall start working on the QPQ now, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk
- QPQ added. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion and mistake I made. With "copyvio is not observed" I meant that even thogh there is a relative high rate of 30.6% for ref #1 the matching phrases both in the article and the ref are special so that this doesn't count for any copyvio issue there. Please forget what I said about the ref #2. It was my mistake. So, I don't raise any copyvio issues at all. About the hooks: Since I cannot assume that everyone knows what WI means, I choose the original hook. For the phrase "burns unit", I AGF because I am not able to check it at the given ref. Meanwhile, QPQ was done. I approve the nomination. Good to go. CeeGee 07:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
