Talk:History of medicine in France

History of medicine in France was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 13, 2017.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 17th-century France, the staff of hospitals was not made up of doctors, but mostly of nuns from the Daughters of Charity?

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henryschuh, Dsun15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article feedback?

Hello, I'm checking in to see if anyone has thoughts on how to improve this article - please let us know here if so! Henryschuh (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we'd be happy to hear thoughts or feedback! Henryschuh (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of medicine in France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 08:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take up this review. Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article! A "good article" is reviewed against six criteria below. I don't think this article meets those criteria but will keep the review open for a few days to give you a chance to respond. Yours --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

This isn't a full review but I have put the table up above to give you an idea of what you are contending with. This article:

Needs more references, so that content can be verified
Needs pages to be provided with book references
Could do with some images, which help illustrate the text
Needs to use more WP:WIKILINKs, so that readers can help understand the topics more
Needs to make mention of prechristian France, eg Frankish, Roman, Celtic medicine
Needs to make mention of the contributions of French people to medicine after 1800

Rome wasn't built in a day; please don't take this too harshly, but this article is very new and may need some time to gestate and mature before it is suitable for GA. Will keep this review open for a few days then close. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failed per above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]