Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Hugh-Jones

< Template:Did you know nominations
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) 06:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Philip Hugh-Jones

edit
(
)

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Doing... -Nizil (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy: The article is new, long enough, cited, no copyvio. The hook is interesting and cited. QPQ needed. The language in the article seem bit strange to me. For example, the product of an affair can be substituted with an illegitimate child. Is it necessary to list all other names It was later known as atypical diabetes, phasic insulin-dependent diabetes, ketosis-prone type 2 diabetes and Flatbush diabetes and is now referred to as atypical ketosis-prone diabetes or type 1B diabetes in the WHO classification or the last two are enough? The article can be copyedited by someone at WP:GOCE if you think that is required. His marriages are covered in Early Life which can be moved to Personal life if it seem OK. Please check External links again and remove which does not follow WP:EL. Please also format them as per MOS:LINK#External links section. These are small improvements. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for such speedy response. We will check over and ping when done. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Should be OK now apart from any more medical details Whispyhistory wishes to add. Was Diabetes previously in types but different types? Could also do with his more significant articles being added and the lead expanding. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Now article looks better. Image of his father looks unnecessary because it can be seen on article of his father. The lead says about emphysema but there is no information on it in the main content. Can you are line or two on it in the Career? I have made few tweaks. QPQ is still pending. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Expanded lead. Can we say how diabetes was previously classified? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy:. If someone had already classified diabetes, he is not first to classify. We can simply write he introduced terms type 1 and type 2 to classify diabetes and tweak in the hook may require. Sources say he introduced terms type 1 and 2, as clinical classification. Before it it was termed as primary and secondary diabetes and other ways of classification. A footnote on previous classifications in the article may help.-Nizil (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
That was my point. The article needs to say what came before and how his classification was different. Why do you wish to put personal life after death? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
hi @Nizil Shah:...I have added a QPQ and found more information on Hugh-Jones, which may lead to an alternative hook. May I request a day or two to go over before you complete a review? Regarding diabetes, he definetly coined type 1 and 2, but was not the first to distinguish 2 types. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy:. Some article such as Salman Khan have separate personal life section after other sections. It is not necessary but my preference. You may restore it to former if you like. @Whispyhistory: I can wait and may conduct new full review. You can reword the hook to reflect that he coined the terms. Thank you for taking the review positively and working more on the article. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I can not find DYK nomination of Padina boergesenii. Can you provide link to that page? So I can verify QPQ.-Nizil (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Kindly...I have corrected the QPQ link (sorry). I'll ping when I'm done with article. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: and @Nizil Shah:...If Philafrenzy can check over first then I think I've expanded enough for now. The article could go on for longer. All his activities were part of big teams. I couldn't think of a coal one. How about
    • ALT1... that in 1955, British physician Philip Hugh-Jones coined the terms type I and type 2 diabetes?
    • ALT2... that in 1955, British physician Philip Hugh-Jones described type J diabetes, where J stands for Jamaica? Whispyhistory (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for working on the article. I think the year is unnecessary and ALT2 is more interesting than ALT1. Need to link Type J diabetes and Jamaica in the hook.-Nizil (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we have link for Type J diabetes? If yes, link it instead of Diabetes mellitus. QPQ is now done. I suggest to remove image of his father which is unnecessary. Everything else seem OK. Are you OK with ALT2a?-Nizil (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you..the link to type J diabetes is Diabetes mellitus....scroll down to "malnutrition-related" - The ICD-10 (1992) diagnostic entity, malnutrition-related diabetes mellitus (MRDM or MMDM, ICD-10 code E12), was deprecated by the World Health Organization (WHO) when the current taxonomy was introduced in 1999. Another slightly modified version of hook, but I don't mind. Thank you Nizil Shah and Philafrenzy. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What happened to being the first to call it types 1 and 2? That should be the hook as it is a landmark thing. I have lost track, do we doubt it now? Philafrenzy (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
of course..that's right too..he was first to name type 1, 2 and J.Whispyhistory (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What's wrong with the original hook "that British physician Philip Hugh-Jones was the first to classify diabetes into types 1 and 2?" Why was it struck? J is interesting but only if we don't have 1 & 2 which is a division recognised globally. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think there was a confusion due to wording first to classify diabetes and first to classify diabetes into type 1 and 2. He was not first to classify DM but first classify into Type 1 and 2. Basically he coined terms which is bit clear in new hooks. I changed type I to type 1 and brought diabetes before types for better readability. ALT3 brings all hooks in one. Is it OK? -Nizil (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Jamaica is a distraction. How about:
ALT4 is okay.Whispyhistory (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
ALT4 is good to go. Sorry for delay as I had missed the changes on watchlist. Thanks for expanding the article and all the discussion. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • On February 18 we ran this hook: ... that Andrew Cudworth popularised the classification of diabetes into type 1 and type 2? Are you sure this is the best hook you can come up with? Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:...I can only think of ALT2b above unless @Philafrenzy: has a view. Otherwise...maybe it is better to keep the type I and II as Philip Hugh-Jones actually originally coined the terms and Cudworth didn't. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Cudworth seems to have slipped my mind even though I commented on it. I still think that the current hook is the killer hook here despite the similarity. Actually coining terms recognised worldwide is really significant. Alt2b could work but doesn't give him the real credit he deserves. Can we not just leave a decent interval and run it in mid March a month after Cudworth? I doubt anyone will complain about the similarity and it wouldn't be excessively late compared to some that wait far longer. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: Actually, ALT2b works better as a hook and will draw more hits, especially now that the hooks are running only 12 hours. But if you really want ALT4, I agree that it should run in another month. Your decision. Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. ALT2b verified and cited inline. Rest of review above. ALT2b good to go. Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
done, thanks Whispyhistory (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for the teamwork.-Nizil (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:...The type J in history on article Diabetes mellitus has been moved to History of diabetes under section classification. Should the link in the hook and in Hugh-Jones's article now be type J? Whispyhistory (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • hook in article, links are same, fact in article followed by inline citation. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Philip_Hugh-Jones&oldid=886090692"