| Revision as of 05:27, 19 December 2006 editDwaipayanc (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,440 edits attention during reworking← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:29, 20 December 2006 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| I'm resetting this nomination (). Much of the old nom pertained to the now totally rewritten formating at the end of the article (it was bad before, it's very good now). ] 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] which is currently a ]. I think it should be Featured as it meets all of the criteria. Note that ] is an entirely separate article; this article is about the man Hippocrates and the Hippocratic school of medicine. This is a self-nomination which has had two peer reviews: ] and ]. Thanks for reading! -- ] 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Whatever it is that you did to the bottom of the article, please undo it: I usually check the structure of the article first (], ], ], correct referencing from ], etc.), and I can't even sort through it in that form. I did see external jumps and lot of listiness - please convert external jumps to wikified text or referenced statements. ] (]) 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What can't you sort out? What external linking is bad? What do you want me to "undo"? An external links section can be added, but I don't think it will be all that helpful. Is there a real problem with the tabling system I've implemented? I think it just saves us from looking at lots of ugly whitespace... -- ] 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''' Strong Oppose'''. <s>Another editor removed the non-standard tables at the end of the article, and Rmrfstar reverted it. Haven't checked referencing because it's hard to read, but there are external jumps,</s> listiness, copy edit needs (observe punctuation errors in Image section, as a quick example), <s>mixed reference styles (Harvard inline and cite.php),</s> choppy prose (numerous short choppy sentences and paragraphs), and I doubt an article this short on Hippocrates can be comprehensive. Get his cleaned up at peer review, and come back. ] (]) 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, what's wrong with "external jumps"? | |||
| ::::The only significant lists are inescapable: the ancestry of Hippocrates and namkesakes of Hippocrates. | |||
| ::::What's wrong with the ''quite standard'' reference style used? | |||
| ::::And I believe the article ''is'' comprehensive. | |||
| ::::I will read through again for the "choppy prose" and "punctuation errors". -- ] 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I removed the external jumps (imbedded links) myself. References still need to be fully expanded; for example, these are not complete references - please include last access date on all web references, as well as article title and publisher: | |||
| :::::: National Library of Medicine Link | |||
| :::::: IEP | |||
| :::::: Lahanas | |||
| ::::: ] (]) 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Done, except for the last three links should remain so because they're not references. -- ] 02:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I see someone else fixed the last three references for you -if those are notable organizations, they should have their own articles and be listed as See also, as they add little to the article. There are still blue linked footnotes that go nowhere (such as the three listed above, recently changed). The prose - indeed, the content - is well below acceptable FA standards (Tony's list is a very short beginning - some of the prose is quite tortured or elementary, and I don't feel like I've learned anything substantive about Hippocrates from the article. The prose is not yet at a professional or compelling level worthy of an FA - Example: "Hippocrates is widely considered the first great physician; however, for a long time, he was also the last. He is readily named the most important influence on medicine for over a thousand years, yet after him there was a dearth of medical advancement.") The listiness at the end of the article comes very close to being spam for commercial organizations, and a list of things recently named after Hippocrates doesn't add much to my knowledge about him - I'd rather the lists in See also. I'm switching to strong oppose - this article has been at FAC for a week, and it's not improving, and I don't believe the prose can make it at this pace. FAC is not peer review. ] (]) 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*Please note that this article had gone through two full peer reviews before I nominated it here. | |||
| :::::::*If other articles get lists of pop culture references, why can't Hippocrates get a list of namesakes? It's not spam and it's far more significant than many other lists in FAs. And why does it need to be in a section labeled "See Also" when it's just "Namesakes". -- ] 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Hi Sandy. Can you elaborate which aspects could be discussed more? I thought "Works" section was needed and created. Unfortunately, biographical information is scarce, and has been divided in two section of "Biography" and "Legends". Did some copyediting. Please see. Here is the for help. The article touches almost every aspect in summary style. Maybe it needs some more good fork articles. Regards.--] (]) 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Oppose</s>''' because of unreadable format. Agree with Rmrfstar, the references are in a narrow column on the left--totally unreadable on my browser, references are a major part of well-researched papers and articles, standardizing the format is a high priority for institutions which publish peer-reviewed journals, so that readers know precisely how to glance at the references while reading to find what they need, totally distinct format forbids that. I keep thinking I'm looking at diffs, not the article. ] 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I think you meant you agree with me :-) ] (]) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***--Well, heck if I can keep it straight ;-), and generally you're more detail oriented than I am. ] 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::As the references were unreadable in your browser, I've removed the tabling system. -- ] 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, I can read it and will do. ] 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I have reviewed twice the article, and I think that the nominator has done his best.--] 07:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - No mention of the ]? ]<sup>] ]</sup> 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I just removed a mention of this from the lead... but I do think it should be replaced. I also listed it under "namesakes", but I'll add another reference and sentence description in the body. -- ] 11:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I think there should be some resolution in the article of whether Hippocrates himself wrote the oath. ]<sup>] ]</sup> 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Yikes, there are a ''ton'' of passive voice constructions. The lead is nearly half passive. Really, we can and should avoid passives. ] 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In some cases I agree, in others, use of the passive voice is not only necessary but beneficial. I have gone through the first half of the article, removing a number of bad examples per your suggestion, and I shall to more. I don't know how many more can come out of the lede, though. -- ] 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Additional comment''' - A bit haigiographic in places. Needs a rewrite which is centered on ''facts'' not flourish. Two examples: ]<sup>] ]</sup> 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **"Despite all of its advancements in medical theory, it was truly in discipline, strict professionalism and rigorous practice that Hippocratic medicine excelled." | |||
| :::I think this is a good sentence which effectively conveys a very important quality of Hippocratic medicine. Would you suggest an alternative? I can think of none. | |||
| **"For all of these above achievements, Hippocrates is widely considered the first great physician; however, for a long time, he was also the last." | |||
| :::Again, I see nothing wrong with this sentence. Remember that "great" is not necessarily a positive term. Hitler, for instance, was most certainly great. It is practically fact that Hippocrates was "great" physician and there was none similar for a long time. -- ] 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Object''' Article is mostly based on his philosophy, and doesn't go into his biography much - whether info conflicts or not, it should still be discussed. Incomprehensive. ] 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, it is only Hippocratic "philosophy" that we know; there is ''very'' little biographical information available. Please see that I've included all possible material in the article under the "Biography" section and under "Legends" when deemed appropriate. -- ] 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lucifer, the nominator is right. Hippocrates' biography is obscure and mostly unknown. I think Rmrfstar did his best to include any available biographical material.--] 09:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Object'''—Significantly below the required "professional" standard of writing. Here are a few random examples that indicate that the ''whole'' text needs serious surgery. | |||
| **"(c. 460 BC–c. 370 BC"—The dash is very awkward here. Try an en dash surrounded by spaces? | |||
| ***Is this OK? | |||
| **"Hippocratic philosophy transmitted the above"—"the above" is very clumsy here. | |||
| ***I have reworked this. Is the new version good? | |||
| **"commingled; very little"—Why is a semicolon used here, when other joins are closer but are represented by periods? | |||
| ***Such as? | |||
| **Vandalism at end of lead. | |||
| ***fixed. | |||
| **"was born near the year 460 BC"—near a place, but not near a chronological point. | |||
| ***According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the first definition of "near" (as an adverb) is "''To, at, or within a short distance or interval in space or time''". | |||
| ::::Yeah, a distance or interval. The year 460 BC is not an interval, but a point in time. It doesn't work. "Around" is what you need. | |||
| :::::Check! | |||
| **" those that are available today must be based on many years of oral tradition"—I think that "must" is a problem here (momentarily ambiguous, and perhaps too definite). | |||
| ***I changed "many" to "hundreds of"; I believe that this should remove the opposing terms. | |||
| **In one sentence under "Biography", there are five commas in the space of 12 words. | |||
| ***There was a list there, but I'll take out a couple extras. | |||
| ::::Or reword. | |||
| :::::Done. | |||
| **"Hippocrates taught and practiced medicine throughout his long life, traveling significantly to do so"—"Significantly", here, is unidiomatic. | |||
| ***Would "greatly" work in its stead? | |||
| ::::No, "widely". ] 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sentence has been reworded. | |||
| **"his death date is speculated with very little certainty". No. ] 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Is the new sentence OK? -- ] 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Other users have pointed out that the article does not abide by ] 1a ("well written"). IMO, the article also needs some more info in order to satisfy "Comprehensive" (WP:WIAFA 1b). There is scope to discuss more on his works. Here is an excellent online source with a lot of information on Hippocrates and his work - . I'd like to request the main contributor to go through this source and incorporate some titbits in the article. At least, a nice fork article on Hippocrates' works, with a good summary in this article is needed. May be a few more legends would satisfy those who are looking for a more detailed biography. Regards.--] (]) 14:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reworked "works" (made it a better summary of what I percieve to be the major points) and will look at that source. -- ] 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please be careful during reworking so that references are maintained and ] is followed. I had to do a bit of copyediting after your reworking in order to correct the punctuations, ref superscripts, and also to replace missing citations. Regards.--] (]) 05:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:29, 20 December 2006
Hippocrates
I'm resetting this nomination (). Much of the old nom pertained to the now totally rewritten formating at the end of the article (it was bad before, it's very good now). Raul654 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)