Template:Did you know nominations/Claudine Picardet
- 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) 05:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Claudine Picardet
edit.jpg)
Claudine Picardet
- ... that 18th century chemist Claudine Picardet translated scientific articles from Swedish, English, German and Italian into French? Source: "By [1782], beside her first translation... from English in 1774, Mme Picardet had already translated – though not yet published – from Italian and German, and she first published from Swedish in November 1782." (Bret, Patrice (29 April 2015) p.129
- Reviewed: Lily Chitty
Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self-nominated at 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC).
- Please note that creation date is the date the article was MOVED from sandbox to mainspace, October 11, 2016.
New enough, long enough, and properly sourced. Earwig's copyvio detector gave high scores for http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2830906005.html and http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Young/yngTF4.html but the actual common phrasings it found were all short trivial expressions, proper names, or quotes, so I don't think there's a problem there. Image is PD. But the source for the image says (in French, in the caption) only that the person depicted could possibly be Picardet, not that she actually is Picardet. So unless there is clearer evidence elsewhere, I think the article should have a caption on the image indicating the same thing, and that we shouldn't use the image in DYK. Also, the QPQ review needs to be revisited now that the nominator has responded there.—David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've added the note to the caption on the infobox; it's already discussed in the portrait section at the end. My impression is that she's not certainly identified because of the lack of any other portraits to corroborate her identify: it would be a pity not to show it -- how often do we get to see 18th century women scientists? But I'll defer to consensus on that. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- QPQ has passed. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, all the issues I discussed above have been properly addressed. I still think that including the image in the DYK entry itself is problematic, because we don't have room there to explain that the image is believed to be Picardet but not confirmed as her, but otherwise this is good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
