Robert Hanham Collyer was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 28, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
There seems to be some problem with the entries for:
(a) * Elliotson, John (April 1855). "On the claims of Dr. Robert H. Collyer in reference ..." The Zoist: A Journal of Cerebral Physiology & Mesmerism, and Their Applications to Human Welfare. 13 (49): 61–68.
and
(b) * Richards, Irving T. (June 1934). "Mary Gove Nichols and John Neal". The New England Quarterly. 7 (2): 335–55.
In relation to both these entries, the "Preview" displays a warning that "One or more ((cite journal)) templates have maintenance messages".
Given that there are no other details/instructions provided, I have no idea about how to proceed. Can you please explain; and, also, direct me to
(i) what the specific problem is, and
(ii) how that problem can be remedied.
Lindsay658 (
talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Lindsay658 (
talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Lindsay658 ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin ( talk · contribs) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I will start reviewing this article and come back with my opinion in a day or two.
Maxim Masiutin (
talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the article on mr. Collyer, however, I was concerned about lots of ambigous points in the article, so that in its current form the article give more questions that presents the answers. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
According to MOS:INTRO, the lead section should accessible to as broad an audience as possible: where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas; where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined so that the subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. Specifically, the term "phreno-magnetism" is linked, but not briefly defined. Please consider defining it brefly in the lead as required by MOS:INTRO. Let me give more details on this objection:
It was mentioned that mr. Collyer was involved in a number of scandals and rivalries, but only one example was given (a claim that he originated inhalation anesthesia for surgery before William T. G. Morton, who is generally credited with the discovery); still, it was not specified in the lead of whether his claim was substantiated or not, and whether William T. G. Morton was indeed the inventor for inhalation anesthesia, and also it was mentioned that William T. G. Morton was "generally credited", but not mentioned by whom (attribution missing), so that the lead section gives more ambiguity than information, so that the lead section could benefit from providing more clarity on these points. pecifically, let me give you more detailed explanation on this issue:
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Based on the information provided in the article, there are a few important details that appear to be missing or could benefit from further clarification. Could you please expand the article or explain on the talk page on why you didnt' cover the following aspects:
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The prose is clear, concise, but it is not understandable to an appropriately broad audience straight at the beginning, since the terms like phreno-magnetism" are not defined as required; however, the spelling and grammar are correct. Therefore, the article in its current form does not comply to the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections. While the article is verifiable with no original research, it is not broad enough in coverage, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the Lead and Body sections. It does not adequately address the main aspects of the topic. Although it is neutral, stable and illustrated, the deficiencies in the lead and body sections and in the lists are major and cannot be quickly fixed by trivial updates. Therefore, I consider that the article does not comply to the good article criteria. However, the article is a potential GA article upon improvement, please consieder imporoving it and submitting again for GA review. As for now, to meet Good Article standards, substantial improvements need addressing core concerns as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, the article does not pass the GA criteria.
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Lindsay658!
According to a Wikipedia Good Article criteria 3.a, the GA article should be broad in its coverage, so that the reviewer should make sure that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. This means that the article should not omit any major facts or details that are significant to the topic. It should provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, including its history, notable controversies, different perspectives, and current status. However, it is important to note that "broad in its coverage" does not mean the article should contain every minor detail or event related to the topic. Instead, it should focus on the information that readers are most likely to be looking for and which aspects are most important to understanding the topic. The article should strive to stay balanced and neutral, representing all viewpoints fairly and without bias. Lastly, while the article should be thorough, it should also be accessible and understandable to non-experts, avoiding unnecessary jargon and complexity. The goal is to provide a well-rounded, informative, and engaging resource for anyone interested in the topic.
The understanding of broadness in coverage or completeness is a subjective matter; each reviewer has their own understanding of these notions of broadness and completeness. What is enough for one reviewer may not be enough for another, and vice versa. The nominee may also disagree with the reviewer on whether a particular aspect should be or should not be covered.
If a reviewer raised a particular point that the nominee considers irrelevant or not worth mentioning, it would always be good for the nominee to start a topic on the Talk page and explain why they believe this issue is irrelevant. This may attract the opinions of other Wikipedia editors.
A new reviewer, when checking whether the nominee addressed the objections of the first reviewer, may read these arguments on the Talk page. If they find the arguments reasonable, they would not demand again that they be addressed. This process ensures a fair and comprehensive review of the article. It also encourages open dialogue and collaboration, which are key principles of interaction among the the Wikipedia editors. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 06:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Robert Hanham Collyer was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 28, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
There seems to be some problem with the entries for:
(a) * Elliotson, John (April 1855). "On the claims of Dr. Robert H. Collyer in reference ..." The Zoist: A Journal of Cerebral Physiology & Mesmerism, and Their Applications to Human Welfare. 13 (49): 61–68.
and
(b) * Richards, Irving T. (June 1934). "Mary Gove Nichols and John Neal". The New England Quarterly. 7 (2): 335–55.
In relation to both these entries, the "Preview" displays a warning that "One or more ((cite journal)) templates have maintenance messages".
Given that there are no other details/instructions provided, I have no idea about how to proceed. Can you please explain; and, also, direct me to
(i) what the specific problem is, and
(ii) how that problem can be remedied.
Lindsay658 (
talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Lindsay658 (
talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Lindsay658 ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin ( talk · contribs) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I will start reviewing this article and come back with my opinion in a day or two.
Maxim Masiutin (
talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the article on mr. Collyer, however, I was concerned about lots of ambigous points in the article, so that in its current form the article give more questions that presents the answers. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
According to MOS:INTRO, the lead section should accessible to as broad an audience as possible: where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas; where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined so that the subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. Specifically, the term "phreno-magnetism" is linked, but not briefly defined. Please consider defining it brefly in the lead as required by MOS:INTRO. Let me give more details on this objection:
It was mentioned that mr. Collyer was involved in a number of scandals and rivalries, but only one example was given (a claim that he originated inhalation anesthesia for surgery before William T. G. Morton, who is generally credited with the discovery); still, it was not specified in the lead of whether his claim was substantiated or not, and whether William T. G. Morton was indeed the inventor for inhalation anesthesia, and also it was mentioned that William T. G. Morton was "generally credited", but not mentioned by whom (attribution missing), so that the lead section gives more ambiguity than information, so that the lead section could benefit from providing more clarity on these points. pecifically, let me give you more detailed explanation on this issue:
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Based on the information provided in the article, there are a few important details that appear to be missing or could benefit from further clarification. Could you please expand the article or explain on the talk page on why you didnt' cover the following aspects:
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The prose is clear, concise, but it is not understandable to an appropriately broad audience straight at the beginning, since the terms like phreno-magnetism" are not defined as required; however, the spelling and grammar are correct. Therefore, the article in its current form does not comply to the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections. While the article is verifiable with no original research, it is not broad enough in coverage, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the Lead and Body sections. It does not adequately address the main aspects of the topic. Although it is neutral, stable and illustrated, the deficiencies in the lead and body sections and in the lists are major and cannot be quickly fixed by trivial updates. Therefore, I consider that the article does not comply to the good article criteria. However, the article is a potential GA article upon improvement, please consieder imporoving it and submitting again for GA review. As for now, to meet Good Article standards, substantial improvements need addressing core concerns as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, the article does not pass the GA criteria.
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Lindsay658!
According to a Wikipedia Good Article criteria 3.a, the GA article should be broad in its coverage, so that the reviewer should make sure that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. This means that the article should not omit any major facts or details that are significant to the topic. It should provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, including its history, notable controversies, different perspectives, and current status. However, it is important to note that "broad in its coverage" does not mean the article should contain every minor detail or event related to the topic. Instead, it should focus on the information that readers are most likely to be looking for and which aspects are most important to understanding the topic. The article should strive to stay balanced and neutral, representing all viewpoints fairly and without bias. Lastly, while the article should be thorough, it should also be accessible and understandable to non-experts, avoiding unnecessary jargon and complexity. The goal is to provide a well-rounded, informative, and engaging resource for anyone interested in the topic.
The understanding of broadness in coverage or completeness is a subjective matter; each reviewer has their own understanding of these notions of broadness and completeness. What is enough for one reviewer may not be enough for another, and vice versa. The nominee may also disagree with the reviewer on whether a particular aspect should be or should not be covered.
If a reviewer raised a particular point that the nominee considers irrelevant or not worth mentioning, it would always be good for the nominee to start a topic on the Talk page and explain why they believe this issue is irrelevant. This may attract the opinions of other Wikipedia editors.
A new reviewer, when checking whether the nominee addressed the objections of the first reviewer, may read these arguments on the Talk page. If they find the arguments reasonable, they would not demand again that they be addressed. This process ensures a fair and comprehensive review of the article. It also encourages open dialogue and collaboration, which are key principles of interaction among the the Wikipedia editors. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 06:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)