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 SL93 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
... that Austrian doctor Paul Bargehr caught some flack for exposing healthy Indonesians to the leprosy bacillus in his experiments? Source: Van Bergen, Leo (2018), Uncertainty, Anxiety, Frugality: Dealing with Leprosy in the Dutch East Indies, 1816–1942, Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. "The physian Bargehr was heavily criticized in 1923 because he had applied leprous tissue on the skin of both the healthy and the sick" within the context of Javanese leprosy, his experiments at the time, and M. leprae being the cause of leprosy.
ALT1: ... that Austrian doctor Paul Bargehr was responsible for naming the lepromin test for Hansen's disease, in which boiled leprosy bacilli are mixed with carbolic acid and applied under the skin? Source: Feldman, William H.; Karlson, Alfred G.; Grindlay, John H. (March 1951), "Lepromin: Mitsuda's Reaction with Experimental Observations in Dogs", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York City: NYAS, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 53–72. "About ten years after Mitsuda's initial report, Bargehr... designated the product "lepromin." Bargehr apparently was the first to use this term."
Rogers, Leonard (October 1930), "The Intradermal Leprolin Test for the Detection of Early and Latent Leprosy" (PDF), Leprosy Review, London: BELRA, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 9–11. Runs through the process described in the article.
Overall: (Note: I have made some minor wikifying and copyediting adjustments to the article, but that would not affect DYK. The article needs to be consistently written in either British or American English. I have adjusted it to British English, but please change it to consistent American English if you wish).
There is one other point which worries me, although it ought not to affect DYK. Your QPQ is complete, and you have gone to a lot of trouble to assist the article's editor. That editor is clearly an intelligent person, and (one would hope) so am I. However, I believe that it would take anyone quite a lot of effort to interpret your requirements for improvement. I'm not saying that you are asking them to do too much; but your explanation is very complex and rather overwhelming, and it would take a lot of effort for most editors to work out exactly what you want them to do. I would suggest that you don't change what you have written, but just add a very simplified set of instructions at the bottom of your review, as a summary. I note that they have not yet replied to your review, or edited their article in response to it. A much-simplified set of basic instructions may speed up their response?
Thank you for this useful medical article. This nomination is good to go. Storye book (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
(Note: I have made some minor wikifying and copyediting adjustments to the article, but that would not affect DYK. The article needs to be consistently written in either British or American English. I have adjusted it to British English, but please change it to consistent American English if you wish).