Template:Did you know nominations/Aaron Novick

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 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Novick

(

)

~~... that Aaron Novick and Leó Szilárd invented the chemostat?~~
ALT1: ... that Aaron Novick was one of the inventors of the chemostat?
ALT2: ~~... that Aaron Novick and Leó Szilárd invented the chemostat in 1950, in the same year that Jacques Monod independently invented his identical bactogéne?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence N. Hickman

5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

- long enough, interesting enough - however article and hook claim that Szilárd and Novick invented the chemostat, while the sourced used to cite clearly states "the chemostat [...] was independently invented by Jacques Monod and by Aaron Novick and Leo Szilard who also coined the term chemostat" - so I think both the hook and article need re-wording slightly to reflect that. Giant Snowman 10:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the content should reflect the source, obviously. Giant Snowman 11:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It does. They invented the chemostat. The details can be found in its article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

...as did Jacques Monod, who is not mentioned anywhere. Therefore it is not accurate. Giant Snowman 12:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jacques Monod independently invented it the same year (1950). It happens sometimes. He called it the "bactogéne", but his name did not catch on. I have added this to the article in a footnote. Proposed an ALT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested ALT2, but I am happy with either ALT1 or ALT2 - do you have a preference? Giant Snowman 09:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My preference is for ALT1. The bactogéne was not identical, but it was a chemostat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to complete review, including such criteria as neutrality and close paraphrasing, and to confirm that the article and sourcing match the ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing ALT1, which is the hookiest of the bunch. 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written. There is some close paraphrasing in one line; do you want to put quotes around it?
Source: demonstrations that when a gene is turned on it directs the synthesis of a molecule called messenger RNA and that the turning off of a gene requires a protein that can bind to the gene.
Article: demonstrating that when a gene is turned on, it directs the synthesis of messenger RNA, while turning off a gene requires a protein to bind to the gene.
Hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Altered the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)