Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Hippocrates - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dwaipayanc (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 19 December 2006 (attention during reworking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:27, 19 December 2006 by Dwaipayanc (talk | contribs) (attention during reworking)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hippocrates

Vital article which is currently a Good article. I think it should be Featured as it meets all of the criteria. Note that Hippocratic corpus 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: One and Two. Thanks for reading! -- Rmrfstar 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 (WP:MOS, WP:LAYOUT, WP:EL, correct referencing from WP:RS, 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. Sandy (Talk) 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... -- Rmrfstar 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. 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, listiness, copy edit needs (observe punctuation errors in Image section, as a quick example), mixed reference styles (Harvard inline and cite.php), 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. Sandy (Talk) 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". -- Rmrfstar 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
Sandy (Talk) 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Done, except for the last three links should remain so because they're not references. -- Rmrfstar 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. Sandy (Talk) 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". -- Rmrfstar 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 difference for help. The article touches almost every aspect in summary style. Maybe it needs some more good fork articles. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose 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. KP Botany 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As the references were unreadable in your browser, I've removed the tabling system. -- Rmrfstar 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I can read it and will do. KP Botany 00:28, 11 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. -- Rmrfstar 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: savidan 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. -- Rmrfstar 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. LuciferMorgan 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. -- Rmrfstar 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.--Yannismarou 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". Tony 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence has been reworded.
  • Comment Other users have pointed out that the article does not abide by WP:WIAFA 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 - Hippocrates in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. 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.--Dwaipayan (talk) 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. -- Rmrfstar 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please be careful during reworking so that references are maintained and WP:MOS 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.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)