- 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: rejected by Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The article cannot be promoted to the main page with an active "refimprove" template, and no edits have been made to it to improve the referencing since the template was appended on March 10, nearly eight weeks ago. It's too bad that no references could be found.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Emil Fröschels
edit- ... that Emil Fröschels, who was stripped of his status as a lecturer at the University of Vienna after the Nazi German Anschluss of Austria, was a founder of the field of speech therapy?
Created/expanded by Robert K S (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC).
The article contains "suspended" word instead of "stripped of" as used here. These are two different terms. And the fact that he was a founder of the field of speech therapy, is not in the reference, it says he was founder and director of speech and voice clinics and He founded and served as president of the New York Society for Speech and Voice Therapy 1947-1972.
The article is new and the prose is enough, however the hook needs to be revisited and recreated to meet the guidelines. MehrajMir (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think the article is fairly clear that he "lost his venia legendi (status as a lecturer)", i.e., was dehabilitated, i.e., stripped of his lecturer status. It seems a little strange to get hung up on the word "suspended" which comes earlier in the sentence and is used to refer to his position, not his habilitation (the former being a job, the latter being more like a license). Moreover, the Nazis were not going to un-suspend Fröschels. In point of fact he had to flee the country for his life in 1939. Robert K S (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
As per WP:DYK, I'm unable to get the current hook verified from those inline references. Therefore I'm turning the review over to a new reviewer for any possible approval soon. MehrajMir (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think these are the two most significant references: [1] (German) [2] (English). Robert K S (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think the article is fairly clear that he "lost his venia legendi (status as a lecturer)", i.e., was dehabilitated, i.e., stripped of his lecturer status. It seems a little strange to get hung up on the word "suspended" which comes earlier in the sentence and is used to refer to his position, not his habilitation (the former being a job, the latter being more like a license). Moreover, the Nazis were not going to un-suspend Fröschels. In point of fact he had to flee the country for his life in 1939. Robert K S (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am ready to review. Interesting life, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - For the hook fact: the term logopedics appears only in the lead and the sentence about the founding in 1924. Can you clarify in the article, with source(s), how that constitutes what the hook says? - Or find another hook? - How do you feel about an infobox? - I think that "ear clinic" is not a common word in English, - perhaps say Ohrenklinik once, explain, and then use a more English term? If "ear clinic" the capitalization should be consistent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing. Can you propose a different hook? As for your proposed changes for the article, I think you should go ahead and make them. I don't know much more about the subject than what is in the article. I do know, from a book I am translating, that his co-workers found his clinical office empty the day of the Anschluss. Surprise, surprise. Anyway, I am not at all married to the hook and if you can modify it in a way that clears any hurdles I beg you to go ahead and do so. Thanks! Robert K S (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, - it's not so much the Anschluss thing, but the "a founder of the field of speech therapy" that I think could be clearer in the article, and you can do it better than I could. I can take care of "ear clinic" and infobox, but only later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I would like you to propose a change in the hook that satisfies the applicable standard, if you could. I can see that calling a person a "founder" of a field is a bit of a subjective thing; one always has predecessors even if they did not strike upon the same ideas and implementations. To that extent, the language of the statement translated from the German Wikipedia counterpart article, even if correct from the perspective of its original author, may never be satisfactorily sourceable. As for "ear clinic", today you would go to an ENT clinic, but back then they didn't include the nose and throat in the discipline. If you don't like "ear clinic" you could just delete it and go with otiological clinic, as the article already specifies parenthetically. Robert K S (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Understand, I guess.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't think it's going to pass muster with the editors at DYK and administrators who want thoroughly sourced facts. The claim in the lead, Together with Karl Cornelius Rothe, he is considered the founder of speech therapy, is not sourced. Under "Work" it says, Fröschels is next to Hermann Gutzmann Sr. as a pioneer of modern language research and founder of speech therapy, which is also unsourced. Don't these statements contradict one another? The third paragraph under "Life" needs at least one citation, per Rule D2, and the last half of the first paragraph under "Life" could also use a citation. Where did you get all this information?
- Regarding the hook, perhaps you could say something about him forming the IALP, or adding something from footnote 2 to introduce readers to the terms "logopedics" and "phoniatrics". After you address the above citations, I could help you formulate a hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It has been just about three weeks, and the issues raised above have not been addressed, and there have been no further comments past a discussion on the nominator's talk page, which hasn't been posted to since February 19. I don't know whether Afernand74, who did work on the article's refs after it was posted, might be able to help out here with additional sourcing or not. If not, the article may not be able to run at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, Yoninah: I added a reference to support the hook. Not my field of expertise though. An alternative wording could be "internationally recognized for his pioneering work on speech therapy?" Hope this helps. Afernand74 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help, Afernand74. Typically, at DYK, the person who adds the source is not the person to pass the nomination; it needs another set of eyes to confirm this, so I'll let Yoninah confirm whether this and/or the suggested rewording addresses the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Looking more closely at the article, there's a lot of information here that isn't sourced; where did you find all this? Each claim should be cited. I think the sweeping statements assigning him prominence should be removed from the article altogether. I fixed the last sentence in the lead to say what he did do. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would like you to propose a change in the hook that satisfies the applicable standard, if you could. I can see that calling a person a "founder" of a field is a bit of a subjective thing; one always has predecessors even if they did not strike upon the same ideas and implementations. To that extent, the language of the statement translated from the German Wikipedia counterpart article, even if correct from the perspective of its original author, may never be satisfactorily sourceable. As for "ear clinic", today you would go to an ENT clinic, but back then they didn't include the nose and throat in the discipline. If you don't like "ear clinic" you could just delete it and go with otiological clinic, as the article already specifies parenthetically. Robert K S (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, - it's not so much the Anschluss thing, but the "a founder of the field of speech therapy" that I think could be clearer in the article, and you can do it better than I could. I can take care of "ear clinic" and infobox, but only later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing. Can you propose a different hook? As for your proposed changes for the article, I think you should go ahead and make them. I don't know much more about the subject than what is in the article. I do know, from a book I am translating, that his co-workers found his clinical office empty the day of the Anschluss. Surprise, surprise. Anyway, I am not at all married to the hook and if you can modify it in a way that clears any hurdles I beg you to go ahead and do so. Thanks! Robert K S (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the above comments, I cannot add anything more to this article, which was a translation from the German Wikipedia. In my opinion the article is in as good shape as any translated article posted to DYK and is ready for posting. A DYK article is not intended to be a Good Article. To the contrary, DYK posting is designed not only as trivia to interest Main Page readers but as a way of attracting editors to new articles that could use improvement. I don't think there are any significant problems with sourcing in the article overall. Yoninah does have concerns with language and DYK visitors to the article can edit the article to improve it. The article should be promoted to DYK status or not, but I think it would be a shame to exclude it on the basis that it's not, by some standards, in perfect shape yet, because rewarding perfect articles is not the point of DYK. Robert K S (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The article cannot be promoted to the main page with an active "refimprove" template, and no edits have been made to it to improve the referencing since the template was appended on March 10, nearly eight weeks ago. It's too bad that no references could be found. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
