Wikipedia:Peer review/Hippocrates/archive1

Hippocrates[edit]

This is a core biography, which I'd like to eventually get up to FA standard, though I know it's not nearly ready yet. I'd just like more input into it as I continue to improve it. Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

There must be more details of his life -- or at least conjecture. As is, the biography section is very brief.

I don't know how many more details there are... what has been said about him that isn't based on fact is in "legends".

If there aren't many relevant pictures, it might help to include quotes or excerpts from the oath instead, using a table or quote box. See e.g. Aspasia.

Am working on this.

~~In terms of organization, I would put "Legacy" last.~~

Done.

Attribute the quotations in the text, in addition to providing a source. For example: "Hippocrates voiced the spirit of an entire epoch, and after his time there was a great gap in the continuity of Greek medicine." Who said this?

I added "(author)"... is that better?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I would just say: According to Garrison, "Hippocrates voiced the spirit of an entire epoch, and after his time there was a great gap in the continuity of Greek medicine." Extended quotes like that should be used sparingly, though, in favor of paraphrasing which fits better into the prose. -- bcasterline • talk 22:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have prosified.

Too many stubby subsections toward the end. If the individual subjects deserve their own headings, expand them; otherwise combine them under more general headings. Some (such as "Ideal physician") include redundant information.

Am working on this.

I think there's room for more criticism, which is largely unaddressed.

In general, there's a lack of detail. Take "Theory", for example -- rather than just listing them, you could explain the four humors, Hippocrates's illness classification scheme (such as the characteristics of each level), and the other medical terms he introduced. So, with some research, I think there's a lot of room for expansion. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 20:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have improved, and will continue to improve these things... thanks for the advice! -- Rmrfstar 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! These are my comments:

Stubby sections and sub-sections. Already mentioned. You have many of them. Expand or merge them. The problem is that if you expand them the article might gradually become huge. In this case, you might have to create sub-pages.

Has been mentioned.

Avoid one-sentence paragraphs. Many users do not like them. Merge them or expand them.

Has been mentioned.

In your references and citations I see only secondary sources. In the text you mention some ancient texts. Don't they exist any more? Can't you citate them and search for more primary sources.

The problem with this is that many primary sources give conflicting information, so instead of wading through all of that and making my own judgements on what's correct (original research), it's good to cite someone who already has. Littre, for instance, spent 22 years researching Hippocrates... I feel it's good practice to cite him and not Galen. It's also a lot easier. I have been moving away from general history books and towards more specialized, older works, though. -- Rmrfstar 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your call! But writing a series of biographies for ancient Greeks, I believe that the citation of primary sources are essential (if available, of cource). A nice combination of primary and secondary sources is the ideal.--Yannismarou 07:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked Suda? It is one of the sources and it could lead you to more of them.
Biography section needs expansion.

Has been mentioned.

I see many red links. If necessary, create yourself some stub articles.--Yannismarou 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the peer review of Hippocrates, not articles relating to it. Red-links are only a problem when they could be pointing to a real article. You'll notice I recently fixed one of these at your suggestion. -- Rmrfstar 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this article a couple of times as you worked on it, & took a moment to see how one book I have on Hippocrates (Wesley D. Smith, Hippocrates: Pseudepigraphic Writings [Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1990]), & realized with some shock that there is an awful lot of work waiting to be done before this article gets close to FA status. I don't mean to discourage you, but here are some suggestions:

"I know it's not nearly ready yet." The main thing that's keeping me from expanding the sections is lack of references. Tomorrow, I am traveling into New York City where I should be able to find some to use.

Spin off the "Hippocratic Corpus" into its own article. It's a complex subject in itself, & leaving only a summary (& a link to the new article) will make the task of writing this much easier for you.

Well, as it was I that merged "Hippocratic Corpus" into Hippocrates, I strongly disagree with this.(A): together they are not too long. (B): they are too interrelated to separate. Separating them is like trying to separate "Hippocrates" and "Hippocratic school of medicine".

Are you willing to discuss the creation of this corpus, & its transmission? A list of the works that most scholars attribute to H., those some attribute, & the pseudepigraphic works? I'm not nit-picking here: there are a lot of issues involved in these works, some of which are more significant than others (e.g., the observations contained in the Epidemics which is the earliest surviving clinical record kept by a physician), & you could spend months just researching them. This is why I feel that it's a very complex subject to deal with, & that you'd be more successful if you backed out that merge. -- llywrch 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think they are inseparable topics. And I am willing to complete the topic, at least for now. If the article becomes unwieldy, it will be unmerged. -- Rmrfstar 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you get the section on ancient Greek medicine under control. While it's almost impossible to discuss Hippocrates without talking about ancient Greek medicine, it is quite easy -- & a dangerous distraction -- to get caught up in explaining it & forget to relate it to this ancient figure.

What section is this?

The most significant change that I noticed in the article was the addition of information about ancient medicine. I was offering some advice as you work on this article. -- llywrch 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I still don't know what you mean. What section discusses ancient Greek medicine but does not relate to Hippocrates? -- Rmrfstar 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After those recommendations to pare the article down, one place it needs to expand is the actual biography: as I write this, only three paragraphs actually cover his life, & they present little solid detail of the man. I know that there are stories about him -- & about his followers. Feel free to include them.

I hope this helps, & again, I hope I don't frighten you from this project. The subject is broad & the time we have for Wikipedia short. -- llywrch 06:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that only plausable material should go in his biography. Legends and stories that are not backed up by evidence should go into "Legends", which I'm trying to expand. Thanks for the suggestions.. -- Rmrfstar 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that section. Is it to come? -- llywrch 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been there, though it needs expansion. -- Rmrfstar 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text is choppy and listy and doesn't flow well; there are numerous one and two-sentence paragraphs; the Table of Contents is rambling, suggesting that the article doesn't enjoy good organization. The prose is informal, and there are typos and the need for a thorough copy edit: example "Hippocrates is often hailed as the first physician to reject superstitious beliefs sucessfully and practice medicine based only on scientific theory. While in some respects he did just this, Hippocrates also had a few pseudo-scientific convictions about the human body and the cause of illnesses." Often hailed uses weasle words, successfully typo, did he successfully reject beliefs or successfully practice medicine? "Had a few" isn't encyclopedic tone. The prose needs a good deal of work, and could probably benefit from involving a fresh set of eyes to reorganize the article and beef up the prose. Sandy 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a major copyedit/rewriting streak. I agree with your comments, and all shall be soon remedied. -- Rmrfstar 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]