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 Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Indian cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Source: Macpherson, Hamish (11 January 2021), "Dr Isabel Kerr", The National, High Wycombe: Newsquest Media Group. "A fellow Scot, Dr Ernest Muir, was researching the use of the oil of the chaulmoogra tree to treat leprosy... [Kerr's] writings on the treatment impressed Muir and Rogers and soon chaulmoogra oil was a standard treatment for leprosy across India and beyond."
ALT1: ... that the Scottish missionary leprologist Ernest Muir worked in the Ottoman Empire, British India, and Trinidad and served as secretary of the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association, now LEPRA? Source: Browne, Stanley George (1974), "Ernest Muir, C.M.G., C.I.E., M.D. (Edin.), F.R.C.S., LL.D. 1880–1974" (PDF), International Journal of Leprosy, Bauru: International Leprosy Association, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 457–458. "Dr Ernest Muir", History of Leprosy: Database, Tokyo: Sasakawa Memorial Health Foundation, 2022.
Overall: As I usually do, I have made a minor copyedit to the article. I have also removed the links in the article to various years - see WP:YEARLINK. This is a dry article about a dry subject. I prefer the first of the hooks, because it is less dry than the second one. However, it's not clear to me whether chaulmoogra oil really is a "traditional Indian cure" as claimed in the first hook. Neither the article nor the quoted passage in the hook reference actually says so. Additionally, and notwithstanding the apparent views of the nominator, I think the first hook should also be linked to chaulmoogra oil and leprosy. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bahnfrend: Thank you for your work! but it's unclear if you're holding up the nomination over the desire to include links in the hooks (no don't & that has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval) or you didn't click the link in the article to chaulmoogra oil (do and cf. WP:BLUE regarding considering herbal cures traditional) or for something else from the comment you left. All copy edits undone, since the grammar 'correction' was mistaken and WP:YEARLINK allows that readers might need to know more about the context of events.
Edit: Judging the real problem from the template to be a citation issue, added "...the traditional Ayurvedic treatment[4]..." to the running text and a link to Parascandola's article, the relevant part of which runs "Whatever we think of this mythical explanation of the origin of the drug, it appears clear that Chaulmoogra oil has a long history in Asia. The oil was long used in traditional Ayurvedic medicine in India for the treatment of leprosy and various skin conditions. It seems to also have been used for the treatment of leprosy in other Asian countries such as China and Burma.6". Ayurvedicis the article and name for traditional Indian medicine so hopefully that can be left as is. In the alternative if it isn't,
ALT2: ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Ayurvedic cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Cite in the paragraph above.
although that's obviously less clear. Again, no needless links to nonpromoted articles. The point is to increase exposure to the articles worked on, not completely unrelated ones. Interested readers can click through. Thanks again for your time on such a dry article on such a dry topic, all the same! — LlywelynII 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
[edit] As my edits have been inappropriately reverted, I am not willing to approve this nomination. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bahnfrend:(a) That's certainly your prerogative but (b) while your attention is appreciated the edits were indeed wrong (or unnecessary) as noted and (c)this is the icon to use to request a new reviewer, when there actually isn't a reason to declare an article ineligible. In the future, if you don't like an article's topic, you can always look at any of the hundred or so other ones and try to be clearer in your comments and own reasoning as to what's actually necessary under the rules versus things you'd personally like to see. Thanks again for your time, all the same! — LlywelynII 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Other reviewers: I know long notes are offputting, but Bahnfrend has already shown the article is within policy aside from wanting more direct sourcing for the specific wording, which has been provided. The argument above is only over unhappiness on unrelated topics. — LlywelynII 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Huh? Saying that a disagreement over the hook - whether to link articles that people aren't likely to understand on their own - is expressing "unhappiness on unrelated topics" or "has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval" is strange. I would review this, but since I think that the article has basic readability problems and that the hook should link to these terms, I expect I'd be treated with this weird aggressive behavior (compare). Urve (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Urve: You're entitled to your opinion but, no, links in hooks have nothing whatsoever to do with their eligibility. That said, if there really are readability issues or even some particular passages you could point to that should be rewritten for better clarity, I'm all ears. The whole point of this is to drive attention to new articles and improve them. — LlywelynII 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: There's been no movement here for three weeks. Question: do you want to continue this DYK or close it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
LlywelynII hasn't edited since June 13th. I've left them a message on their talk page but if they don't return within a week or so it may be time to close this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I have done considerable work on the article, including adding a second source that clearly discusses the traditional use of ch. oil, and citing some text that wasn't fully cited before. I've also added an image of someone with Hansen's disease, if there's any interest in accompanying this with an image. Please re-review. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
ALT2: ALT2 is identical to ALT0 except in that it includes Ayurvedic to indicate that chaulmoogra oil is a traditional treatment. I approve ALT2 (preferred by me, because it may deter some controversy about whether it's traditional medicine or not).
The QPQ review was started by nominator LlywelynII, discussing the hook and some other points, but was never completed with a review of the article. After some delay, another reviewer was called for, and it was ultimately reviewed by someone else. So just to move this along, I donate a spare review of my own: Template:Did you know nominations/Judiciary of Poland. Storye book (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- ?
As I usually do, I have made a minor copyedit to the article. I have also removed the links in the article to various years - see WP:YEARLINK. This is a dry article about a dry subject. I prefer the first of the hooks, because it is less dry than the second one. However, it's not clear to me whether chaulmoogra oil really is a "traditional Indian cure" as claimed in the first hook. Neither the article nor the quoted passage in the hook reference actually says so. Additionally, and notwithstanding the apparent views of the nominator, I think the first hook should also be linked to chaulmoogra oil and leprosy. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bahnfrend: (a) That's certainly your prerogative but (b) while your attention is appreciated the edits were indeed wrong (or unnecessary) as noted and (c) this is the icon to use to request a new reviewer, when there actually isn't a reason to declare an article ineligible. In the future, if you don't like an article's topic, you can always look at any of the hundred or so other ones and try to be clearer in your comments and own reasoning as to what's actually necessary under the rules versus things you'd personally like to see. Thanks again for your time, all the same! — LlywelynII 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
As follows: