Talk:Iatrochemistry

Iatrochemistry was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 25, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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.

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): Ccoope52, Jshamul, Mkang29. Peer reviewers: Lwebb15, Gaukulius, Hnguye68.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Overall, I liked the detailed history which provided a solid background for major figures/events in Iatrochemistry's timeline like Paracelsus' & van Helmont's theories and the various applications of alchemy/chymistry to medicine.

For the intro summarizing iatrochemistry's brief history, briefly elaborate on what made Paracelsus "most notable leader [of iatrochemistry]" vs. Helmont. Also what therapies and concepts used today? Include one or two notable examples.
Elaborate on gaps of history surrounding Paracelsus and van Helmont like John of Rpescissa and Phillipp Ulstad.
Excellent work on later iatrochemists beyond van Helmont. I'd expand a little bit on Boerhaave's time as doctor in wars. For Sylvius, clarify for his theories to what degree his experiments involved digestion (like did he use animals in place of humans or ditched observation all together?). Also elaborate on how it was determined that Willis's theories were inaccurate.
Were there any notable figureheads in South Asian Iatrochemistry? Include them as well if possible.
I think that "Challenge to Galenic physiology" could be considered redundant since many of the iatrochemists mentioned challenged or modified Galenic tradition. Alternatively, it also features Paracelsus more than other prominent figures even though they too had different thoughts.

Good work! Hnguye68 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi! This article is packed with information which is great. The article is well sourced and easy to follow in general. This article gives a great overview of the topic and goes straight into the detail. Following the Wikipedia format, the large unseparated section on Iatrochemistry's History in Europe is quite daunting. Is it possible to split it up into more sections that would make it easier to read? The first paragraph of the History in Europe section goes right into how medicine became a part of alchemy, but the connection to Iatrochemistry is a little unclear or not explicitly stated. It would be helpful if you situated the article with how it relates to iatrochemistry from the start. As of right now it just seems like interesting information. The folowing sentences in the paragraph about van Helmont's bias towards unity seem a little unclear to me. What is a pool of it fluid? Could you rewrite the second sentence to make it a little more clear?: "In examining body fluids, he postulated the notion of "latex," attempting to relate latex to secretions and thirst.[5] This implied a common pool of it fluid, participating in more than one of what the Galenists took to be distinct humours." Can you find a citation for this sentence: "Possibly being one of the most famous physicians of the 17th and 18th centuries, Herman Boerhaave (1668-1738) approached phenomena in medicine with a scientific process of observation and experiments." I agree that Herman Boerhaave was very important and famous, but as I was reading I wanted to see the specific source to qualify that statement. In the paragraph about Herman Boerhaave and Franciscus Sylvius there is a lot of information without citations at the end of the sentence. There is only one citation for the entire paragraph. Could you add more references throughout those paragraphs? It would make readers trust your article more. Also, if possible it is helpful to have more than one source about a specific topic. The section on challenging Galenic thought is very well written, but there are no citations. I think it could be made stronger by adding citations. Overall a very well written and informative article. Good job!Lwebb15 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iatrochemistry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks citations several places and has maintenance tags, so it is not ready for GAN, and I therefore have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

basic copy editing

Ortus or Orlus, which is it? I routinely see misspellings, repetition, and grammatical errors in wikipedia articles. Which is why I consult this website less and less. If someone can't get the basics right I don't trust anything they submit. Rskurat (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]