Template:Did you know nominations/Vera Popova
- 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Vera Popova (now Vera Bogdanovskaia)
[edit]
- ... that the first female chemist (pictured) to die as a result of her work was trying to make H-C≡P?
- ALT1:... that Vera Bogdanovskaia (pictured) died in the laboratory her husband had given her as a wedding present?
- Reviewed: QPQ done - Irene Greif
5x expanded by Aciram and Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 08:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
According to DYK check, the article is 342 characters short of being a x5 expansion. It's a shame because, in my opinion, this is exactly the kind of article that needs to be expanded and DYK should feature, so I hope you can get this one on the front page.
- The Ogilvie and Rayner-Canham sources has a different transliteration of her name. Perhaps adding alternate transliterations or her name in cyrillic could boost the character count.
- The wording of the hook is awkward. Why not something simple like
- Alt2 ... that chemist Vera Popova (pictured) was the first woman to die conducting scientific research?
- Hook source and picture check out.
- Your hook source cites this article as its source for that info. I've uploaded it to dropbox in case it can help you add a few extra characters to the article.
- Your primary sources, Ogilvie and Rayner-Canham, list her under her maiden name. Should not the title of the Wikipedia article do so as well?
Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. The article you sent and the mods you made to the article were very useful. I think the size has now grown and the quality has increased.
- I will add some different transliterations - good idea.
- Your hook is a good alt. although maybe not so intriguing?
- Maiden name? - could do.
- I think this addresses the major point. I'll look at the rest later. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for the review and the offer of help. Can you identify or correct the errors you have found please. I do value your suggestions but these are not part of the DYK review. I think you will find that it is compliant with the rules. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think you will find that it is compliant with the rules. Coincidentally I too your suggestion and created "Vera Bogdanovskaia" as main title. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Now article is expanded enough from 683 to 3880 readable characters, so passes expansion test. But I will let User:Gamaliel check the errors that were spotted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks GB - I removed the date from Alt1 as it is confusing and added "Alt2" as a label above. I think alt2 may not be supported by the cites as I think she was the first chemist to die. Alt2 implies she was the first female.
- Alt3 ... that Vera Bogdanovskaia (pictured) was the first woman chemist to die conducting scientific research? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my absence, I was dealing with a major, real world deadline. I've corrected the error I found regarding her attendance at the Smolny Institute and I could not find any others. I think this is ready to go now. Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a wet be a wet blanket, but the source doesn't say she was the first woman chemist to die etc etc., but rather that she probably was, and (apparently) it says this without citation. Now, this is a reasonable surmise given the history of chemistry to that point, but it appears to be surmise nonetheless, and the hook should not present it as straight fact. I recommend quoting the source, which is much more fun-sounding anyway. And there's plenty of room in the 200-char limit, so why not show off a bit with some impressive polysyllabic terminology?
- ALT4: ... that Vera Bogdanovskaia (pictured) "probably became the first woman to die in the cause of chemistry" when she was killed attempting to synthesize methylidynephosphane, a structural analog of hydrogen cyanide?
- (I know nothing about chemistry so someone better check me on the structural analog mumbojumbo, and it may need to be added to the Bogdanovskaia article to satisfy the rule that the hook be directly supported.) EEng (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the added comments - if you look at ref2 which is cited in the lede then it actually says she is the first to die "as a result of her research". No mention of chemistry or "probably". I have added probably because I suspect the statement may not be as doubtless as it is stated. I'm happy to add "probably" to the hooks if that helps. I suspect your chemistry based alt may be problematic as it pulls in a lot of other facts. Why not just use the first 16 words, but do remove the quotes as I don't think we have a ref for the words you propose. I would prefer a simpler hook - if we include every detail in the hook then it loses intrigue. Alternatively you could strike your comments and let the approved hooks continue? Hope you can resolve your doubts Victuallers (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's some confusion here. I'm looking at p.64 of Rayner, Women in Chemistry [1], which says exactly what I quoted in ALT4. Are you looking at something else? If not, then there's no way ALT3 can be appropriate, because it presents her being "first" as straight fact, and Rayner presents it as "probably". Personally, I think the quote's notion of dying "in the cause of chemistry" has exactly the fun (well, not fun for her, I guess) flavor a hook ought to have. But the stuff after the last comma I just threw in because it can be nice to give laymen a window into the terminology of a specialized field -- who knows but some highschool kid might be inspired to become a chemist! -- but I won't be offended if you guys want to end the sentence at that last comma, or make other changes. The most important thing is that the hook must reflect that her "firstness" is a notion, not a fact. Again, I think quoting Rayner is the best way to do that. (BTW I had already altered the lead to conform to that before I made my OP here.) EEng (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is some confusion. The reference I mentioned above does say she is the first. That is the phrase used when the original hook was written and when it was originally passed on the 27th April. You have found a later statement of the same fact in the same reference where the same authors use the word "probably". So it would appear that the original hook was cited and was mentioned in the reference provided with that phrasing without "probably". The authors may have sensibly decided to ignore the phrase "probably" or "to this date is the only known women written about in modern recorded history in a reliable source etc". Can I suggest again that you let the original hook stand or alt1 which is unaffected by your discovery. I have suggested that we include the word probably in any of the hooks, but I think that to quote your favourite statement over others in the same reference (and in several more) seems unusual. Please be aware that DYK hooks are not intended to be the article but the hook for the article. Having a reasonable and cited surmise in a hook is fine. Victuallers (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's some confusion here. I'm looking at p.64 of Rayner, Women in Chemistry [1], which says exactly what I quoted in ALT4. Are you looking at something else? If not, then there's no way ALT3 can be appropriate, because it presents her being "first" as straight fact, and Rayner presents it as "probably". Personally, I think the quote's notion of dying "in the cause of chemistry" has exactly the fun (well, not fun for her, I guess) flavor a hook ought to have. But the stuff after the last comma I just threw in because it can be nice to give laymen a window into the terminology of a specialized field -- who knows but some highschool kid might be inspired to become a chemist! -- but I won't be offended if you guys want to end the sentence at that last comma, or make other changes. The most important thing is that the hook must reflect that her "firstness" is a notion, not a fact. Again, I think quoting Rayner is the best way to do that. (BTW I had already altered the lead to conform to that before I made my OP here.) EEng (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- ALT5:... that Vera Bogdanovskaia (pictured) was killed in 1896 while trying to make H-C≡P, a chemical not successfully synthesized until 1961?
Nice article, delighted to see it. (Note, there is some inconsistency in year of death in different citations; I've edited to indicate this in the discussion of her death. The Russian sources give 1896, and I've left that as the main date in the lead and infobox areas.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wait... which hook are you approving? EEng (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, my preference would be for the ALT5 hook.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wait... which hook are you approving? EEng (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the added comments - if you look at ref2 which is cited in the lede then it actually says she is the first to die "as a result of her research". No mention of chemistry or "probably". I have added probably because I suspect the statement may not be as doubtless as it is stated. I'm happy to add "probably" to the hooks if that helps. I suspect your chemistry based alt may be problematic as it pulls in a lot of other facts. Why not just use the first 16 words, but do remove the quotes as I don't think we have a ref for the words you propose. I would prefer a simpler hook - if we include every detail in the hook then it loses intrigue. Alternatively you could strike your comments and let the approved hooks continue? Hope you can resolve your doubts Victuallers (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)