Template:Did you know nominations/Frances Ames
- 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 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Frances Ames
[edit]... that Frances Ames was the first female professor at the University of Cape Town?
Improved to Good Article status by Viriditas (talk). Nominated by Lixxx235 (talk) at 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC).
Looks good to me. Article promoted to GA one week ago, no copyvio concerns, reliable sources are used, catchy hook. Good to go. Eurodyne (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This review needs more details, in accordance with DYK review instructions. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYK Reviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Eurodyne: is the hook fact verified in the source and cited inline? I didn't see it in the source. Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Those two cited sources (lead, body) are misplaced, and I'll correct the problem when I get home in several hours. For the moment, you can verify the hook with Breier & Wildschut 2006 (which is cited elsewhere in the article). Here is a direct link to p. 61, but notes the UCT medical school. I'll try to clarify shortly. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I looked into this. Breier & Wildschut are citing p. 72 of chapter 2 of this report, which appears to have confused me because it was using UCT to mean the UCT medical school. So that needs to be fixed. I'll be home shortly to change this. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I've removed the claim/hook in its entirety from the article. This is not to say that it is incorrect; it is likely correct. But I've noticed three red flags that stand out, and that's grounds for removal: 1) Breier & Wildschut 2006 cite a comprehensive government report to support the claim that Ames was the first female professor at the UCT medical school.[1] So far, so good. For most of us, that would be enough, and we would cite the hook. But, digging deeper we find that 2) the original report cited for the claim has a glaring error. It says that Ames was likely the first full female professor at UCT. That's just not true. Ames makes it clear that she was unhappy that she was never made a full professor, and Pat Sidley of the British Medical Journal published it. Now, it's certainly possible that Sidley made a mistake, but when one compares this claim to various UCT bios,[2] there's no indication she was ever made a full professor, just the opposite. "She was promoted ad hominem to associate professor in 1978 and to Emeritus Associate Professor in 1997. Last June UCT awarded her an honorary doctorate in Medicine (DScMed)." Finally, 3) aside from Breier & Wildschut 2006 which repeats the claim, no other source repeats it. Three red flags is enough, so I've removed it. If anyone wants to nominate a solid hook, go with "was the first woman to receive a Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Cape Town". That's been verified in every good source on the subject. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Viriditas: for doing the due diligence to uncover the true facts. I am striking the original hook, and reiterating your ALT1 hook here:
- ALT1: ... that Frances Ames was the first woman to receive a Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Cape Town?
- Alternately, you may wish to consider:
- ALT2: ... that South African neurologist Frances Ames risked her personal safety to expose the cover-up of the death of anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko, who died under police torture? Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I've removed the claim/hook in its entirety from the article. This is not to say that it is incorrect; it is likely correct. But I've noticed three red flags that stand out, and that's grounds for removal: 1) Breier & Wildschut 2006 cite a comprehensive government report to support the claim that Ames was the first female professor at the UCT medical school.[1] So far, so good. For most of us, that would be enough, and we would cite the hook. But, digging deeper we find that 2) the original report cited for the claim has a glaring error. It says that Ames was likely the first full female professor at UCT. That's just not true. Ames makes it clear that she was unhappy that she was never made a full professor, and Pat Sidley of the British Medical Journal published it. Now, it's certainly possible that Sidley made a mistake, but when one compares this claim to various UCT bios,[2] there's no indication she was ever made a full professor, just the opposite. "She was promoted ad hominem to associate professor in 1978 and to Emeritus Associate Professor in 1997. Last June UCT awarded her an honorary doctorate in Medicine (DScMed)." Finally, 3) aside from Breier & Wildschut 2006 which repeats the claim, no other source repeats it. Three red flags is enough, so I've removed it. If anyone wants to nominate a solid hook, go with "was the first woman to receive a Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Cape Town". That's been verified in every good source on the subject. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- for ALT1 and
for ALT2. Article has been promoted to GA status and is long enough. It is neutral, well-sourced with inline citations and no close paraphrasing was detected. Both ALT1 and ALT2 hooks meet formatting guidelines, are neutral and are cited with inline citations in the article. QPQ not required as this is Lixxx235's first nomination. Good job by Viriditas here researching the UCT professorship. Good to go. Request that this one be held for Women's History Month. gobonobo + c 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
