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 Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Overall: @Philafrenzy:@Whispyhistory: Very good work on this article! I started working on this review earlier and missed Ergo Sum's review (it looks like Philafrenzy has already responded to the issue raised in that review), but I have comments that I thought should be raised anyway. I think the article and the hook meet the standards for DYK and are OK to run as-is. I have two optional comments:
Optional recommendation on wording: I think "a test for early pregnancy" might be slightly better as "an innovative early-pregnancy test," which I've listed as ALT1 above. The wording "early pregnancy test" is used in the article itself in both the intro and body. I suspect you worded it as "a test for early pregnancy" to clarify that the test was able to detect pregnancy in early stages, and to avoid possible confusion that the use of the word "early" refers to the historical context (e.g., that a reader would misunderstand and think this was among the first-ever pregnancy tests or something like that). I think "early-pregancy" as a hyphenated compound word removes any ambiguity (and allows the option to link to pregnancy test, which could be useful). The word "innovative" is also used in the article and I think it would be appropriately neutral in DYK as well: it's supported by the source material and it accurately conveys that Kapeller-Adler's test was a cutting-edge development/novel application of biochemical knowledge for its time. While I think these tweaks improve the hook, the original ALT0 is acceptable as-is and meets all the substantive DYK criteria, so if the nominator disagrees with my ALT1 edits, ALT0 is fine and can be promoted.
Photo: I did some digging and I feel reasonably certain that the photo portrait of Kapeller-Adler is in the public domain. I scoured the source site (both Kapeller-Adler's page and the site's general info pages) for any notices about copyright or prior publication of photos, turning up nothing. We don't know the identity of the author or whether the photo was ever published (prior to its publication in the online database); we do know that the photo is dated 1930, and we can reasonably infer the photo was taken in Austria based on Kapeller-Adler's biography. After researching Austrian copyright, it seems like this photo is in the public domain regardless of publication or authorship identity. See WP:URAA, specifically the footnote about photos published or created in Austria prior to 1932. It would be tagged on Commons with {{PD-1996}} (public domain in the US) and {{PD-Austria-1932}} (public domain in source country Austria). As such, Kapeller-Adler's portrait could optionally run with the hook once it is transferred to Commons. I leave it to the uploader Philafrenzy to transfer it to Commons if you'd like to handle that, or if not I can transfer it. I'll leave the decision to include her portrait as part of the DYK nomination with the nominator, but I think it would be a good idea. —BLZ · talk 00:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: great reviewing! I have added the pic at Commons and here and proposed an Alt2. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT2 with the picture is great! I filled out the picture criteria to my review template above just to dot every i. —BLZ · talk 20:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- n
The second paragraph under Early Life does not have a citation at the end of the paragraph. Ergo Sum 22:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: @Whispyhistory: Very good work on this article! I started working on this review earlier and missed Ergo Sum's review (it looks like Philafrenzy has already responded to the issue raised in that review), but I have comments that I thought should be raised anyway. I think the article and the hook meet the standards for DYK and are OK to run as-is. I have two optional comments:
