Template:Did you know nominations/Judith Vaitukaitis
- 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 Allen3 talk 10:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Judith Vaitukaitis
edit
... that Judith Vaitukaitis developed the first home pregnancy kit after trying to use the technique to diagnose cancer?
Created by CunningV (talk). Nominated by Hildabast (talk) at 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for a great contribution which I feel is bound for a picture slot. Length, sources and reffing are fine. The hook is interesting but maybe a big claim. The image is free and I've increased its apparent size. I have read three of the refs and I cannot find this fact that it was to detect cancer nor that she "developed" the kit. Its clear that she was the lady though. Maybe use ref2 and have a hook that says "Judith Vaitukaitis would probably be a household name if she had been allowed to patent her discovery that led to home pregnancy testing?".... Oh, and wouldn't a "home pregnancy kit" be different from a "home pregnancy testing kit"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - how about we make it more scientifically precise? Is this still catchy/short enough?
- ALT1: ... that Judith Vaitukaitis developed the chemical technique for the first home pregnancy test after trying to use it to diagnose cancer?
See source number 7 for the rationale for why it was not patented (that it was not in the public interest to patent). Hildabast (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think we had an edit clash Victuallers (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just butting in to say that I prefer the original hook, and don't see a substantial difference between it and ALT1. Isn't a home pregnancy test totally and utterly dependent on its "chemical technique"? Without that, what do you have? Nothing. A blank stick with pee on it. The only real difference I see between the two hooks is their tone: the original makes a "big claim" while ALT1 is more unassuming, more hesitant to call attention to itself. I say, if the big claim is true, make it, boldly and succinctly. --Rosekelleher (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Victuallers; the article doesn't say that she developed the kit, but the method of its operation. Publishing a paper about the chemical assay is a different task than determining the actual composition of a commercial kit. I've stricken the original hook. Although her research was along with two other researchers, reference 2 says that she discovered the assay, which is enough for me. ALT1 approved (with "kit" changed to "test" per above), based on Victruallers' earlier review. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
