Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Dodding: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Approved |
Philafrenzy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::: Had a chance to speak to a history professor. The fact that he’s in [[Munk's Roll]] ought to be enough. He is important to historical anthropology. Does that help? [[User:Whispyhistory|Whispyhistory]] ([[User talk:Whispyhistory|talk]]) 09:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
::: Had a chance to speak to a history professor. The fact that he’s in [[Munk's Roll]] ought to be enough. He is important to historical anthropology. Does that help? [[User:Whispyhistory|Whispyhistory]] ([[User talk:Whispyhistory|talk]]) 09:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::: [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] I'm inclined to believe that Dodding is notable, just that there is little published about him (which is not terribly surprising, considering that he died in the sixteenth century). Munk's Roll makes no mention of the postmortem, bolstering the idea that he was notable beyond one event. Since this is the only issue holding back the nomination, I'm giving it a tick. --[[User:Usernameunique|Usernameunique]] ([[User talk:Usernameunique|talk]]) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
:::: [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] I'm inclined to believe that Dodding is notable, just that there is little published about him (which is not terribly surprising, considering that he died in the sixteenth century). Munk's Roll makes no mention of the postmortem, bolstering the idea that he was notable beyond one event. Since this is the only issue holding back the nomination, I'm giving it a tick. --[[User:Usernameunique|Usernameunique]] ([[User talk:Usernameunique|talk]]) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::Thanks, I see I still need to do a QPQ which I will do very shortly. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 00:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
||
Revision as of 00:58, 19 December 2017
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Edward Dodding
.jpg)
Kalicho (left).
- ... that Elizabethan physician Edward Dodding conducted a post-mortem examination of Kalicho, an Inuit man injured by a Cornish sailor? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8-4s2aXr8oQC&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
- ALT1:... that Edward Dodding saw the death of three Inuit native Americans as a missed opportunity to display them to Queen Elizabeth I. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5ZvFAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
- Reviewed: To be done
- Caption on pic can be adjusted if the Alt is selected.
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 13:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC).
All the basics are here, new, length, cites and image license. However, I have concerns about WP:EVENT - isn't this article really about the Inuit? Dodding seems to be entirely unnotable otherwise. Maury Markowitz (talk)
- I take your point. It could and should be expanded with material about the rest of his career. The sources do talk very much about how Dodding approached the Inuit, his attitudes and assumptions so they are very much about him, albeit principally in respect of this one episode as you say. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: I don't think we will be able to expand the biographical content of the article further without visiting specialist libraries to extract the information which I can't do right now. Do you approve the article in its current form Maury? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I take your point. It could and should be expanded with material about the rest of his career. The sources do talk very much about how Dodding approached the Inuit, his attitudes and assumptions so they are very much about him, albeit principally in respect of this one episode as you say. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well I'd like to get someone else to weigh in, I don't feel qualified to make a call at this point. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Had a chance to speak to a history professor. The fact that he’s in Munk's Roll ought to be enough. He is important to historical anthropology. Does that help? Whispyhistory (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to believe that Dodding is notable, just that there is little published about him (which is not terribly surprising, considering that he died in the sixteenth century). Munk's Roll makes no mention of the postmortem, bolstering the idea that he was notable beyond one event. Since this is the only issue holding back the nomination, I'm giving it a tick. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see I still need to do a QPQ which I will do very shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Had a chance to speak to a history professor. The fact that he’s in Munk's Roll ought to be enough. He is important to historical anthropology. Does that help? Whispyhistory (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
