Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Veale
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Laura Veale
- ... that Laura Veale was the first Yorkshire-born woman to be qualified as a doctor?
- Source: Several, including: Harrogate Advertiser: "Hampsthwaite commemorates North Yorkshire’s first female doctor Laura Sobey Veale". Note: This fact has had to be carefully interpreted. It was initially expressed as "the first Yorkshire woman to become a doctor" on the brown plaque, pictured in the article and written by the eminent Harrogate historian Malcolm Neesam. He meant "Yorkshire-born". However it has since been interpreted to mean that she was the first female doctor to practise in Yorkshire, which would be incorrect. Edith Pechey was the first qualified woman doctor to practise in Yorkshire, but she was born in Essex, so to local understanding she was definitely not a "Yorkshire woman" (they are very parochially-minded here). Veale was born in Yorkshire.
- Reviewed: Sonja van den Ende
- Comment: Created in userspace over some weeks from 15 March, then moved to mainspace on 6 May.
Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 105 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Storye book (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC).
The article was moved to mainspace yesterday, so is new enough. It is far more than long enough and properly uses in-line citations (perhaps even more so than necessary for some sentences). The copyvio detector doesn't find anything other than names of things and quotes that are properly used in the article. The hook is short enough, interesting, and is cited inline. The QPQ has been done and there's no image to review. Looks good to go! SilverserenC 20:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review, Silver seren Re the "even more so than necessary", you'll find that some experienced editors are doing that for a good reason. For example, if you have a "first" in the article, that is going to be automatically questioned and double-checked, and rightly so. Therefore, it is worth finding as many different, independent sources as possible for that "first" and including them all in the article. There is also the fact that some sources may be accessible to some readers (e.g. readers with a subscription, readers in the UK, etc.) and some source may not be accessible to all (e.g. readers outside the UK or without subscription), so it's worth giving them a few alternative sources. A third reason is that various sources give different aspects to the same fact, and some sources also include extra facts which the editor chooses not to include in the article, but which are extremely interesting. In the cast of historical articles, contemporary sources may give the historical standpoint on the matter. Extra sources containing additional facts may also allow other editors to expand the article. Nothing is wasted in this particular article, and there is a reason for everything. Storye book (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)