This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a thoroughly sourced
good article, and with editing, stylistic improvements, and perhaps removal of some excessively long sections to daughter articles, it could become a
featured article.
Note: the article was recently subject to intense edit warring, but this seems to be under control. I would like suggestions on how to improve the article so that former adversaries can work together towards a common goal.
Thanks, Jehochman Talk 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not copy the semi automated review here - this is stated in the directions above, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article is a polemic against Homeopathy: it s not neutral.
1.” Claims for its efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies” This is not a neutral statement. Most of the studies I read in the article don’t support the sentence. They concluded that the results are positive but not convicning. 2. The only study which” debunked “ homeopathy has caused a major controversy (major press .articles, debates - I saw one at the museum of the natural history ) and important homeopaths have critisized it in reliable sources : where is this critisism ? 3.Homeopathy according to the editors of the article is not regarded ………controversial anymore; despite all the reliable sources which state the opposite. 4.The article is unstable since December . : Totally unbalanced and biased.-- Radames1 ( talk) 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
When everyone is done mucking about ;) the grammar of the article will need to be corrected -- assuming it isn't in the interim. However, the present course doesn't seem to offer much hope. •Jim62sch• dissera! 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a thoroughly sourced
good article, and with editing, stylistic improvements, and perhaps removal of some excessively long sections to daughter articles, it could become a
featured article.
Note: the article was recently subject to intense edit warring, but this seems to be under control. I would like suggestions on how to improve the article so that former adversaries can work together towards a common goal.
Thanks, Jehochman Talk 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not copy the semi automated review here - this is stated in the directions above, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article is a polemic against Homeopathy: it s not neutral.
1.” Claims for its efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies” This is not a neutral statement. Most of the studies I read in the article don’t support the sentence. They concluded that the results are positive but not convicning. 2. The only study which” debunked “ homeopathy has caused a major controversy (major press .articles, debates - I saw one at the museum of the natural history ) and important homeopaths have critisized it in reliable sources : where is this critisism ? 3.Homeopathy according to the editors of the article is not regarded ………controversial anymore; despite all the reliable sources which state the opposite. 4.The article is unstable since December . : Totally unbalanced and biased.-- Radames1 ( talk) 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
When everyone is done mucking about ;) the grammar of the article will need to be corrected -- assuming it isn't in the interim. However, the present course doesn't seem to offer much hope. •Jim62sch• dissera! 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)