- 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 Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elmer McCollum
edit
Elmer McCollum
... that in the 130 years it took scientists to find it, Elmer McCollum (pictured) and Marguerite Davis codiscovered vitamin A three weeks before Osborne and Mendel?
- ALT1: ... that Elmer McCollum (pictured) and Marguerite Davis discovered vitamin A three weeks before Osborne and Mendel?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Margarete Zuelzer, Template:Did you know nominations/Chitra Dewi, Template:Did you know nominations/Tiffany Trump, Template:Did you know nominations/Felicity Okpete Ovai, Template:Did you know nominations/Omar Mateen, Pulse (nightclub)
5x expanded by SusanLesch (talk). Self-nominated at 18:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
The article has not been 5x expanded in the past 10 days. I have not progressed any further than reviewing the length at this point. If this is resolved, I'll take a look at the rest. FunkyCanute (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review, FunkyCanute. I don't use Javascript so my word count was crudely done. Now we have 24,282 characters which seems to be more than 5 times the original 4804.
- My most pressing problem is copyvios. See what you think. Certainly wired.com just copied Wikipedia so we can throw that one out. But some URIs show up that I haven't even read, let alone copied. And one source on which most likely I based too much information doesn't even show up.
- I am happy to work with you to reduce any problems in any way I can help. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: The article is now at 5x, easily long enough, appears neutral, has inline citations, but there is clear copyvio. The Wired article was copied when the early expansion occurred in March 2008: the giveaway is "(.pdf)". The other blatant copyvio is from an article published in 2002. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again, FunkyCanute. Well done. I hadn't considered the idea that what Wikipedia already had could be a copyvio. The Wired problem has been taken care of. The 2002 source, with which I am not familiar, was a little bit finicky but Earwig's detector now finds it acceptable. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyone else? Evidently this reviewer is no longer interested. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. Approving ALT1, the facts having inline citations to reliable sources. Not approving the original hook because the 130 year period continued to the date of synthesis of the vitamin in 1947. The image is in the public domain, the article is neutral, and I believe the copivio issues raised above have been resolved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, thank you for your review. A last-minute tweak. Can we please simply say "discovered" (in place of "codiscovered")? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
