Template:Did you know nominations/Locked twins

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Locked twins

(

)

... that when twin fetuses lock together during childbirth, the first twin is sometimes decapitated to save the second?

Reviewed: Lexington Historical Museum
Comment: In case of any doubt, both sources for the hook fact do actually use the term "decapitated". 97198 (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 05:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

The hook is intriguing, and the article meets criteria. I accept the offline sources used in good faith. Congratulations!--Lemuellio (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The article actually says the "dead" twin may be decapitated to allow for safe delivery. The hook makes no mention that the "first" twin is actually dead. It's pretty sensational to begin with...-108.54.184.103 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that the hook is sensationalist, as sensationalism refers to skewing facts to hype up interest. Yes, I chose what I thought was the most interesting part of the article for the hook, but it is still accurate and worded in a way that wouldn't be out of place in any medical textbook. (For what it's worth, the first twin is not always dead at the time of decapitation and I've now clarified that in the article.) 97198 (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2014 (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) 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not catching the hook/article discrepancy. It looks as if User:97198 has resolved the discrepancy appropriately by revising the article.

Though I didn't attempt to describe my process in detail when writing my initial review comment, I did indeed check the article against the DYK instructions at that time, as follows:

New: Article created on the same day it was nominated = pass
Featured before: No = pass
Long enough: 2386 characters of readable prose = pass
Appropriate citations: As I said in the initial review, I accept the offline sources in good faith = pass
Verify the basic facts: Easily done with an internet search; article's content matched all the sources I found = pass
Dispute templates: None = pass
BLP: Not applicable = pass
Plagiarism: None that I could find = pass
Neutral: Yes = pass
AfD: Not applicable = pass
Hook: All criteria met = pass
It looks to me like the nomination can pass. However, given the controversy and because I don't pretend to be an expert on this medical subject, I'd like to request a second opinion.--Lemuellio (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Lemuellio. In view of the comment by 97198 on 21 May above, I endorse your expanded review (which I am taking on trust). Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)