The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• ... that Elisha Coysh, great-grandfather of Sarah Coysh, was a physician renowned for his care of victims of the Great Plague of London?

• Reviewed: Louise Cochrane
• Comment: Ref for hook is #10.

Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Self nom at 23:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would be better if the hook were about the article's subject rather than her great-grandfather. Is there nothing interesting to say about the subject?? (Not a review, just a suggestion) Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's generally true but, in this case, the article is a genealogy article about the heiress' family tree, and I picked one of her interesting ancestors. Anne (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• New enough and long enough at the time of nomination. QPQ done. (Article was actually 5 fold expanded on 2 July so the date it is listed is technically wrong.) As per above, not a huge fan of the hook but can understand its appeal. Still, it is formatted correctly. All five images have acceptable copyright tags. Hooked fact appears in article and is supported by multiple citations. Article is completely supported by inline citations.
• Sources without urls are reliable, not plagiarised and support text. Also that subject is notable. --LauraHale (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I pulled this one out of the prep area. Neither the article nor the hook is about Sarah Coysh, and a person has to read the long first paragraph to even get down to the first appearance of her name. As a reader of DYK, I would find this situation bewildering. Before sending this one to the main page, let's at least get a lead sentence that focuses on Sarah Coysh and her relationship to the rest of the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Read the article. Thought she was primarily notable because of her lineage instead of her own work and the article focused on this, with the lead making that explicit saying it was doing that. --LauraHale (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've read the article, although only once over lightly. A person has to read the entire longish lead section just to find her name, and the rest of the article is largely genealogical details in which hers is just one of many names. I'm looking for a lead sentence (or short lead paragraph) that identifies Sarah Coysh and explains why the article is about her. As near as I can determine, the lead sentence should be something along the general lines of "Sarah Coysh (c. 1742 – 1801) was heiress to the estates of the Coysh, Allen, and James families whose marriage to John Rolls in 1767 illustrates the method by which the renowned Rolls family of Monmouthshire, Wales, and London, England, accumulated its wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries." --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I customarily write a short, uncited lead. However, as this is a genealogy article, I utilized a different format with my lead. I included citations in a longer introduction that gave examples of her notable descendants, tying their opportunity and success to Sarah's marriage and the actions of her ancestors. I've rearranged the lead such that Sarah starts the line up. Anne (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Thanks. Those changes resolve my concerns. --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)