Template:Did you know nominations/Central Mental Hospital
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Central Mental Hospital
edit
- ... that the Central Mental Hospital (pictured) in Ireland, completed in 1850, was the first secure hospital in Europe?
- Reviewed: Niagra Falls, from the American side
- Comment: There is another picture but this one seemed to apply better to the hook
Created by RTG (talk). Self nominated at 14:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
- The article is new enough and long enough, there are inline citations, and the hook is mentioned in the cited source. A copyvio is unlikely (24.2% chance, which is low enough for me), the image is free and pretty high-resolution, therefore this looks
good to go to me! Everymorning talk to me 01:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned somewhere else just now, I've had no coffee this morning so I'm grumpy. However, I cannot let pass this idea that 24.2% represents the "chance of a copyvio". This % is just some arbitrary metric on some arbitrary scale of how much stuff in corpus A matched how much stuff in corpus B, after chopping them both up into ill-defined bits which are then thrown into a blender. I doubt the person who wrote the copyvio detector really understands the significance of the percentage either. All we can say is that 24% is "worse' than 5% which is worse than 1%. (And anyway, it really were the chance, 24% would be way too high -- it would not be OK for 1/4 of hooks to randomly containing copyvios.) EEng (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- It seems like the most iffy part of the article with respect to a potential copyvio is the "modern service" section, and in particular the sentence "The site is fully accredited by the Royal College of Psychiatrists for training purposes and provides intensive psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation." Compare that to "Intensive psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation are provided in a structured therapeutic environment by five consultant-led multidisciplinary teams. The hospital is fully accredited for training purposes by the Royal College of Psychiatrists." [1] A bit of rewording couldn't hurt here. Thanks for the explanation above, EEng. Everymorning talk to me 13:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned somewhere else just now, I've had no coffee this morning so I'm grumpy. However, I cannot let pass this idea that 24.2% represents the "chance of a copyvio". This % is just some arbitrary metric on some arbitrary scale of how much stuff in corpus A matched how much stuff in corpus B, after chopping them both up into ill-defined bits which are then thrown into a blender. I doubt the person who wrote the copyvio detector really understands the significance of the percentage either. All we can say is that 24% is "worse' than 5% which is worse than 1%. (And anyway, it really were the chance, 24% would be way too high -- it would not be OK for 1/4 of hooks to randomly containing copyvios.) EEng (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article is new enough and long enough, there are inline citations, and the hook is mentioned in the cited source. A copyvio is unlikely (24.2% chance, which is low enough for me), the image is free and pretty high-resolution, therefore this looks
