Template:Did you know nominations/Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family
- The following discussion 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 10:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family
[edit]- ... that Lewis Henry Morgan's editor refused to let him dedicate Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family to his two dead daughters?
Created/expanded by Maunus (talk). Self nominated at 17:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC).
- Reviewed: Skagen Odde.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The first hook is misleading, making it sound as if $8000 is the purchase price per copy -- it's obvious from the article this is the cost of publication. I suspect a Gutenberg Bible might have been had at that price in that year. ALT1 is better anyway. EEng (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- AH, your're right in my attempt to make the hook as concise as possible it became ambiguous - I also prefer the ALT1 hook, but I will fix the first one anyway.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of further revising. However, there's still a problem. $8000 would not cover the cost of publication of a serious science book today, so I think this must have been the most expensive up to that time. I suspect that's what's meant by the passage in the article, "most expensive work the ever published by the Smithsonianb" -- probably should read "...then ever published...", but someone needs to check the source. EEng (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC) I'd appreciate it if you'd return to Talk:Phineas Gage -- and let's all try to avoid getting too emotional!
- Yes, of course it was at that time, that is implicit in the use of the past tense, otherwise it would be "is the most expensive work ever published".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think the presence of the word ever strongly implies, well, ever. I hope you don't mind I've modified again. But I still think ALT1 is better.
- Iøve removed the first hook entirely replacing it with the ALT1, which I agree is better.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Perfect. EEng (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you could review the nomination according to the DYK criteria also?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perfect. EEng (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Iøve removed the first hook entirely replacing it with the ALT1, which I agree is better.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think the presence of the word ever strongly implies, well, ever. I hope you don't mind I've modified again. But I still think ALT1 is better.
- Yes, of course it was at that time, that is implicit in the use of the past tense, otherwise it would be "is the most expensive work ever published".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of further revising. However, there's still a problem. $8000 would not cover the cost of publication of a serious science book today, so I think this must have been the most expensive up to that time. I suspect that's what's meant by the passage in the article, "most expensive work the ever published by the Smithsonianb" -- probably should read "...then ever published...", but someone needs to check the source. EEng (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC) I'd appreciate it if you'd return to Talk:Phineas Gage -- and let's all try to avoid getting too emotional!
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Long enough, new enough at nomination time, QPQ done
- A broad range of offline printed works cited, AGF to offline sources as publication details clearly cited; one para under "Research" is uncited but I don't see this as a problem in this instance given the breadth of reference throughout the article.
- Hook length and format ok
Hook NOT in article - the daughters were not dead, see the quote from Morgan which states that he felt he lost his daughters as result of having to spend so long on the editing process. The hook would be ok with the word "dead" removed; although less tantalizing it is far more accurate.- On a humorous note, it is quite ironic that this book was held up by two rounds of peer review! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes the duaghters were dead. You misunderstand the quote what he says is that he felt that his reason was the reason they died. The fact that they died is quite explicitly stated in both the article and in the sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes Maunus, you are quite right, I misread the context. My apologies, I can see that the date of their death is corroborated in a separate part of the article, and I AGF on the source. Good to go. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 20:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
