Template:Did you know nominations/Gisela Januszewska

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Gisela Januszewska

(

)

... that the Austrian Jewish doctor Gisela Januszewska was one of few physicians who strove to ensure access to proper healthcare to Bosnian Muslim women?

ALT1:... that Gisela Januszewska, the first woman physician in Banja Luka, was renowned for treating illnesses rampant among Bosnian Muslim women?
ALT2:... that Austrian physician Gisela Januszewska, famed for her work among Bosnian Muslim women and highly decorated for her World War I service, died in a concentration camp?
Reviewed: Elizabeth Gray (fossil collector)

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 22:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC).

Review Good to go! New article, timely nominated. Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. In passing, I note that I do not speak or read German or Serbo-Croatian, and review of the hooks citations is therefore problematical. One could quibble over whether there was 'close paraphrasing' of the sources, and I have no idea. However, I WP:AGF, particularly given the article creator's notable, lengthy and favorable WP:DYK history. Earwig's copy violation detector: Gisela Junuszewska report gives it a clean bill. Hooks are hooky enough, I think, and relate directly to the essence of the article. They are interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done~~, although it seems to not have been completed (required)~~, and has yet to be promoted (not required). Excellent article! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I have completed the review of the article and approved the proposed hook (the tick is there), but also suggested (rather than required) that the nominator propose an alternative or two. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for clarifying the QPQ/DYK. And also for tweaking the subject article to allay my minor editorial concerns. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call your concerns minor. There is a significant difference between running a private medical practice and taking holy orders :) Which hook do you prefer? Surtsicna (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the original or ALT2. As to ALT1, I do not want to put STDs in identified ethnic groups on the main page, true or not. ALT2 is an ironic juxtaposition of the doctor's humanity, and the horror of Nazi inhumanity. But I think the final choice should be up to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I am not sure what you mean by putting STDs in identified ethnic groups on the main page. No connection is made between an STD and an ethnic group in the hook or in the article. I believe I too like ALT2 best. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Only one of those in the litany of diseases afflicting those poor women was an STD. In any event, we agree that ALT2 is what we want. Ciao. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The litany of diseases, including syphillis, afflicted women of all ethnicities, as everywhere in the world. The only one mentioned as "rampant among Muslim women" specifically is osteomalacia. If that is not clear enough in the article, please let me know how I can make it so - or reword it yourself, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Copy edit of diseases. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)