Talk:Samuel Powel Griffitts

Needs more sources and better inline citations

There is quite a bit about SPG online in the archived "Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia". They gives his name consistently as "Samuel P. Griffitts" but it is clearly the same person who was born in 1759 and married Mary Fishbourne. This is a useful supplement to the source currently relied on, because it focuses on his career in the medical community rather than his relationship with the APS.

There is also a substantial entry about "Griffitts" in American Medical Biographies, accessible via Wikisource.[1] And another on "Griffitts" in a 1904 Dictionary of Notable Americans.[2] There are also at least two books that contain memorial material about him.[3] And our article John Kearsley Mitchell mentions that he studied under "Dr. Samuel Powel Griffitts." In short, this person is clearly notable but the biography needs to meet Wikipedia standards and to figure out how his last name should be spelled. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

adding sources is never a reason to draftify, if it is notable then improve quality in article space. Seephope (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Seephope: I am not the person who draftified it, I am a person working (slowly) to fix it. The original had several problems beside its single source: no clear claim of notability and multiple errors of fact, including that the person's name is "Griffitts" not "Griffiths", which was mistakenly entered into the APS records in 1785, but which they have since corrected. An 1889 Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society gives his name as "Samuel Powel Griffitts" in its index of members (page 193) but incorrectly as "Samuel Powel Griffiths" (page 135) in its list of members elected on January 22, 1785. In 1917, the APS addressed the issue of the two names, concluding that "Griffitts" was intended while "Griffiths" never existed. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Benjamin Rush advised Samuel Powel Griffitts, as part of his European medical training, to take three months of dancing lessons? Source: "Whitfield J. Bell, 1943, page 6 "Rush recommended that .. Griffitts attend lectures on natural philosophy as well as on medical subjects...and spend an hour daily for three months on dancing lessons."
  • ALT1:... that Philadelphia physician Samuel Powel Griffitts (1759–1826) was the nephew of Philadelphia mayor Samuel Powel (1738–1793)? Source:Whitfield J. Bell, 1997, page 268 "Three weeks later, Powel himself was down with the [yellow] fever...his nephew Samuel Powel Griffitts, now a doctor, stayed with him night and day, but his case was fatal and at six o'clock in the morning of 29 September [1793] he died"

• Reviewed: Granny (sea anenome)

Created by MAHosieAPS (talk) and HouseOfChange (talk). Nominated by HouseOfChange (talk) at 19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC).

• Article was created in Mainspace on June 8. Granted, it was moved to drafts for cleanup nearly two months later. The article has not been expanded by 5x since then, only about 2.5x. I don't think this meets newness if you look at either original publication date or expansion. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

BuySomeApples, The article that was moved to draftspace was about 2,200 bytes.[4], with multiple errors of fact (which have now been corrected), no claim of notability, and only one reference. The article moved to mainspace on August 6 is essentially a new article. Please compare the two articles and reconsider its eligibility. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment Given the fact the article was completely WP:TNTed and rewritten within the draft space, and then moved back, and then renominated within seven days of the move, I think we should give leeway to the OP. Even if we weren't to do that, this would still pass under the "not exactly" rule–we don't have to strictly enforce the seven days rule if the creation/expansion date was after the oldest current nomination (currently May 17). But come on, this article really only has a connection in the narrowest possible sense. It's basically a new article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Theleekycauldron for agreeing that this interesting article should be eligible for DYK. How do I ask for a second review? Or is it permanently torpedoed from DYK unless BuySomeApples agrees with your assessment? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: I'd say that you should give BuySomeApples some time to respond—if they don't respond, or refuse to budge, you should request a second review then. You can do this with by using the symbol encoded with {{subst:DYK?again}}.

@HouseOfChange: Sorry for not replying as soon as you commented, but I had to sleep and do some stuff before checking on this. A rejection doesn't "permanently torpedo" the nom's chances. I'll let someone else do a second review on this one since it was significantly improved before being moved back out of drafts. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: Thanks for your reply and for kindly asking for another review. Yes, it was significantly improved before being moved back out of drafts and I am the person who was improving it there, correcting many errors and adding more than 4,000 bytes of text and footnotes. On August 6, to my surprise, another editor moved the article from draft to mainspace. I continued to improve it. I don't think my having done substantial work to improve the article while it was in draftspace should disqualify it from DYK. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This article now needs a full review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: It's been two weeks and no one else has taken this, so I guess I'll do a full review. Article is long enough, sourced and no copyvio. Hook is cited and interesting (I'd love to think that the dance class really did make him a better doctor). qpq is done so this nom's ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P5 with modifications