- 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 SL93 talk 21:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Laura Veale
- ... that Laura Veale was the first Yorkshire-born woman to be qualified as a doctor?
- Source: Several, including: Harrogate Advertiser: "Hampsthwaite commemorates North Yorkshire’s first female doctor Laura Sobey Veale". Note: This fact has had to be carefully interpreted. It was initially expressed as "the first Yorkshire woman to become a doctor" on the brown plaque, pictured in the article and written by the eminent Harrogate historian Malcolm Neesam. He meant "Yorkshire-born". However it has since been interpreted to mean that she was the first female doctor to practise in Yorkshire, which would be incorrect. Edith Pechey was the first qualified woman doctor to practise in Yorkshire, but she was born in Essex, so to local understanding she was definitely not a "Yorkshire woman" (they are very parochially-minded here). Veale was born in Yorkshire.
- Reviewed: Sonja van den Ende
- Comment: Created in userspace over some weeks from 15 March, then moved to mainspace on 6 May.
Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 105 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Storye book (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC).
The article was moved to mainspace yesterday, so is new enough. It is far more than long enough and properly uses in-line citations (perhaps even more so than necessary for some sentences). The copyvio detector doesn't find anything other than names of things and quotes that are properly used in the article. The hook is short enough, interesting, and is cited inline. The QPQ has been done and there's no image to review. Looks good to go! SilverserenC 20:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review, Silver seren Re the "even more so than necessary", you'll find that some experienced editors are doing that for a good reason. For example, if you have a "first" in the article, that is going to be automatically questioned and double-checked, and rightly so. Therefore, it is worth finding as many different, independent sources as possible for that "first" and including them all in the article. There is also the fact that some sources may be accessible to some readers (e.g. readers with a subscription, readers in the UK, etc.) and some source may not be accessible to all (e.g. readers outside the UK or without subscription), so it's worth giving them a few alternative sources. A third reason is that various sources give different aspects to the same fact, and some sources also include extra facts which the editor chooses not to include in the article, but which are extremely interesting. In the cast of historical articles, contemporary sources may give the historical standpoint on the matter. Extra sources containing additional facts may also allow other editors to expand the article. Nothing is wasted in this particular article, and there is a reason for everything. Storye book (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book and Silver seren: The relevant policy is WP:CLUMP, which says that "Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." I'm afraid it would deserve {{clump}}, and I think your explanation on this page would constitute WP:SYNTH anyway.--Launchballer 11:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing the surplus reference. I notice there are several unattributed quotes, including (but not limited to) "the first Yorkshire[-born] woman to become a doctor" and the "by all reports" sentence after it, that are not attributed in text, and I think they should be.--Launchballer 19:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book and Silver seren: The relevant policy is WP:CLUMP, which says that "Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." I'm afraid it would deserve {{clump}}, and I think your explanation on this page would constitute WP:SYNTH anyway.--Launchballer 11:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Edit conflict. @Launchballer: (1) There are now no groups of more than three citations in the article. (2) Synth is about article content. It does not govern discussions on DYK templates, article talk pages or user talk pages. It is permissible to give one's opinion on DYK templates (how often have you seen the opinion "I don't like that hook"?) Neither is Synth about the grouping together of two or more references which support the relevant fact, and just so happen to contain extra material which may or may not also be useful where the fact is controversial. I shall look at the unattributed quotations. Storye book (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added attributions in words to all the remaining quotations, except where the quotations were just one or two words. It doesn't look right to me, because the quotations are already cited at their ends, but I have done it since you asked, to keep the peace. Storye book (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Edit conflict. @Launchballer: (1) There are now no groups of more than three citations in the article. (2) Synth is about article content. It does not govern discussions on DYK templates, article talk pages or user talk pages. It is permissible to give one's opinion on DYK templates (how often have you seen the opinion "I don't like that hook"?) Neither is Synth about the grouping together of two or more references which support the relevant fact, and just so happen to contain extra material which may or may not also be useful where the fact is controversial. I shall look at the unattributed quotations. Storye book (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Unpromoted per Special:Diff/1227320336 RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that despite the contemporary misogyny of the medical profession in her home county of Yorkshire, Laura Veale was accepted for medical training at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School? (186 characters) (Source: The BMJ: "She decided) to enter the medical profession at a time when this was a particularly difficult step for women to take. In fact the medical school in Leeds shut its doors to her, and she had to go to the more liberal-minded University of London to pursue her studies, passing the London M.B. in 1904".) Note: the Royal Free Hospital Medical School was then run under the auspices of the University of London. Storye book (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that despite the misogyny of the medical profession in her home county, Laura Veale was accepted for medical training at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School?
- Additional source for ALTs 1 and 2: ("In the late 19th century, there was still a stigma, and a considerable amount of opposition to women entering medicine, which is made evident by Laura Veale’s rejection from Leeds medical school. Despite this, Laura did not give up on a medical career and was eventually accepted to study medicine at the University of London.". (Paul Jennings is a published professional historian)) Storye book (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: to promoter: Please use the picture or not as you wish, but I am sure that you will not discard the picture on the sole grounds of not being a pretty girl, because she had quite enough misogyny in her lifetime. Thank you.. Storye book (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)- Oops. Forgot that the image is not yet free. Storye book (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Storye book, do you have a source linking the misogyny of the medical profession and Veale's acceptance by the RFHMS? Otherwise ALTs 1 and 2 are probably WP:SYNTH. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oops. Forgot that the image is not yet free. Storye book (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the misogyny of one institution would ever be linked to the liberality of another institution? ALTs 1 and 2 actually differentiate between them. However: try these:
- ALT3 ... that despite being denied medical training in her home county of Yorkshire, Laura Veale was accepted at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School? (Source as ALT1 above)
- ALT4 ... that despite being denied medical training in her home county, Laura Veale was accepted at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School? (Source as ALT1 above) Storye book (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Silver seren could you look at the latest proposed hooks? TSventon (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. From those above, I would agree that ALT4 is the most concise and best wording of that one and the source checks out, so
for all of those alts in general. SilverserenC 18:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Silver seren and Storye book: even though I was born in the Royal Free Hospital, I don't think this meets WP:DYKINT: getting rejected from one place and accepted at another isn't unusual in the slightest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Well of course I agree with you, but we got ALTs 3 and 4 in response to a rejection of ALTs 1 and 2 which contained the mention of misogynistic denial of a place in Leeds Medical School, a mention which I believe many women would respond to (in today's political climate). Here is another quotation which is in the article and cited, which supports ALTs 1 and 2: ("In the late 19th century, there was still a stigma, and a considerable amount of opposition to women entering medicine, which is made evident by Laura Veale’s rejection from Leeds medical school. Despite this, Laura did not give up on a medical career and was eventually accepted to study medicine at the University of London.". (Paul Jennings is a published professional historian)) I have now added that source to ALTs 1 and 2 above. Also, you can have:
- ALT5: ... that Laura Veale was the first woman to practise in Harrogate as a doctor? (Source: "Laura Veale qualified as a doctor at the Royal Free Hospital, London in 1904. Once qualified, Laura’s first post was at the Hospital for Women and Children in Leeds. After six months she returned to her home town of Harrogate, and set up a general practice at 3 Victoria Avenue, and in doing so she became Harrogate’s, and indeed Yorkshire’s first woman doctor"..) Storye book (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The context is that Veale applied to her local men's medical school and was rejected. She then applied to a women's medical school and was accepted. I have changed the Royal Free links to London Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine for Women as that article is about the school she applied to rather than the hospital or the successor school. I am sure misogyny was involved in her rejection, but the article and hook should report what the sources say, rather than what we think.
- I have been looking into the background, and it seems that the first English university outside London to admit women to its medical school was Newcastle, then part of Durham, starting in 1893. They only allowed women to graduate after 1895. I have added some sources at Talk:London School of Medicine for Women#History of Women in Medicine in England. TSventon (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon: Thank you, that's brilliant. What do you want me to do about it on this template, though? Should I do some kind of different ALT to fit which source? Or should I import a different source into the article? Or can you suggest a new type of ALT? I'm happy to cooperate if I know what to do. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book: I think I should add a context section to the LSMW article as I can't see any more general article to add the information to. I don't particularly think anything needs to be added to this article, but commented as potential promoters don't need to be experts in 19th century education. Hopefully AirshipJungleman29 will respond to your ping in due course. TSventon (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for all your help. I won't do anything, and I'll wait for AirshipJungleman29 to comment. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that passes WP:DYKINT; do you want me to review the hook, bearing in mind I won't be able to promote it, or wait to see if any of the commenters above are willing? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for all your help. I won't do anything, and I'll wait for AirshipJungleman29 to comment. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book: I think I should add a context section to the LSMW article as I can't see any more general article to add the information to. I don't particularly think anything needs to be added to this article, but commented as potential promoters don't need to be experts in 19th century education. Hopefully AirshipJungleman29 will respond to your ping in due course. TSventon (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon: Thank you, that's brilliant. What do you want me to do about it on this template, though? Should I do some kind of different ALT to fit which source? Or should I import a different source into the article? Or can you suggest a new type of ALT? I'm happy to cooperate if I know what to do. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. From those above, I would agree that ALT4 is the most concise and best wording of that one and the source checks out, so
- Silver seren could you look at the latest proposed hooks? TSventon (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
