Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Lucas (shorthand)

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 Yoninah (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Lucas (shorthand)

(

)

... that British educator Thomas Mark Lucas created an embossed shorthand to teach the blind to read by touch around 1830-1832, before the introduction of Braille in the UK? Source: http://archive.rsbc.org.uk/history/the-story-of-rlsb-founder-thomas-lucas/ https://bjo.bmj.com/content/bjophthalmol/49/9/485.full.pdf
- ALT1:... that many alternative systems of tactile systems of reading for the blind existed before the universal adoption of the Braille system, including Thomas Mark Lucas' system introduced around 1830-1832? Source: http://archive.rsbc.org.uk/history/the-story-of-rlsb-founder-thomas-lucas/ https://bjo.bmj.com/content/bjophthalmol/49/9/485.full.pdf

Created by E bruton (talk). Self-nominated at 15:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

New, long enough, passes Earwig & within policy. I've tightened up hook a wee bit - it's from online source & is good. No QPQ necessary yet as nominator is new to DYK. Zeromonk (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this and did extensive wikifying and cleanup; please see the page history. There is one paragraph that lacks any cites, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying this up and I've added a citation to the relevant paragraph. E bruton (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, the only problem is the source you're using says the system was introduced in 1838, and you're saying it was introduced in the 1830s. Is there a reason for not giving a specific date? Yoninah (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There's some ambiguity across the various sources and none of them cite primary source material such as to provide sufficient evidence one way or another. I didn't want to get into discussing different sources but can add something about ambiguity if that helps? E bruton (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@E bruton: yes, a note is always helpful. This is often done in the case of conflicting birthdates for a subject. I had a case where there were two completely different stories for how a product was invented. I gave the most cited version in the text, and then added a note with the alternate version. Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks, I've added quite a detailed note about the sources and changed the DYK citation above to 1830-1832. E bruton (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@E bruton: thank you, that looks great. Please consider removing the blue highlighting from the notelist; it's hard to view. Hook refs are verified and cited inline. Restoring tick per Zeromonk's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks very much. I've been on Wikipedia quite a while and genuinely have no idea how to remove the blue highlighting from the notelist (it's the first notelist I've done) and have no idea what you mean by "Hook refs are verified and cited inline". Care to elaborate? If you mean insert the note into the main text, I did this first but ended up with more explanatory text than actual text so moved it to the note field.E bruton (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)