Template:Did you know nominations/De Materia Medica (Dioscorides)

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) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

De Materia Medica (Dioscorides) edit

(

)

... that the five-volume book De Materia Medica, written by Dioscorides between 50 and 70 AD (page from 6th century edition pictured), is the precursor to all modern pharmacopoeias?

Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 19:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

Article new enough as a GA, long enough, and adequately cited. Hook short enough, interesting enough, and also cited. Article appears to be neutral and free of copyright violations and plagiarism. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The reference cited for the hook fact does not support such a sweeping claim, so I've pulled the hook. Pinging Chiswick Chap, Oceanh and Dr. Blofeld. Ping ping ping [blows across top of ping pistol and reholsters it]. Belle (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevant DYK talk section (with a total of one contributor, me). Belle (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so how about

* ... that the five-volume book De Materia Medica, written by Dioscorides between 50 and 70 AD (page from 6th century edition pictured), became the central pharmacological work in Europe and the Middle East for sixteen centuries? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

HOWEVER ... the original hook IS supported by other sources like Kathleen Hefferon: Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine, Oxford University Press, 2012, page 46 or Anne Rooney, The Story of Medicine, Arcturus Publishing, 2009, page 143 (among many others, it's an obvious and well-supported claim).

The original hook is fine now as supported by the other references (although I doubt it is the precursor of Chinese pharmacopoeias the sources don't make that distinction). It is identically worded to the sources, but there's not a lot you can do about that without mangling it and since the same wording is used in various sources it can't be copyvio. The alt hook is also identically worded to the source, but I think you could rephrase that, so I'm disqualifying it on that basis. Ready with original hook. Prep-builder, it would be a shame not to use the image as it is quite pretty even at the DYK size. Belle (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)