Template:Did you know nominations/Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science
- 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) 01:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science
- ... that the 1989 book Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science examines the role of happenstance in the history of science? Source: See the reviews cited in the article (or the book itself)
- ALT1:... that the 1989 book Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science examines the role of fortuitous accidents in the history of science? Source: See the reviews cited in the article (or the book itself)
Created by Genericusername57 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC).
- For starters, I want to see a better hook. None of the content attributed to the book reviewers specifically mentioned "happenstance," and according to the text. Roberts himself used that term in relation to "pseudoserendipity". "Happenstance" is more neutral than "serendipity" - more of 'because of certain circumstances, but not planned,' versus 'a favorable outcome not sought for'. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD: Sorry, do you think "fortuitous accidents" would be better? Although the book is titled Serendipity, Roberts writes that many of the events he describes are better classified as pseudoserendipitous.[1] gnu57 23:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, do that as ALT1. I will work through the rest of the criteria in next day or two. David notMD (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD: Sorry, do you think "fortuitous accidents" would be better? Although the book is titled Serendipity, Roberts writes that many of the events he describes are better classified as pseudoserendipitous.[1] gnu57 23:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Given six book reviews cited in the body of the draft, no need to list an additionals six (Bamberger, Beilski, Burger, Dembart, Gratzer, Kauffman) under Sources. For the ALT1, copy the Sources statement from the first proposed hook to ALT1. Once that is done I believe I can complete the approval process. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- For starters, I want to see a better hook. None of the content attributed to the book reviewers specifically mentioned "happenstance," and according to the text. Roberts himself used that term in relation to "pseudoserendipity". "Happenstance" is more neutral than "serendipity" - more of 'because of certain circumstances, but not planned,' versus 'a favorable outcome not sought for'. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- not needed
New article, long enough, sourced, neutral, recent enough to qualify for DYK, QPQ not needed. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)