Talk:Iatrophysics

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): Hnguye68, Yennyyang, Mkang29. Peer reviewers: Acewind88, Nikkilopezsuarez, KaylaMa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some Suggestions for Edits

For the section "Iatrophysicists," I really like that you have highlighted a lot of contributions from different iatrophysicists, but one aspect I would like to see more of is how these theories interacted and built on each other. Drawing out more of the links and development of the theories would make the history of iatrophysics stand out a lot more coherently.

I also agree that some more background would have helped develop the article more. I added a little bit about how the Enlightenment impacted medicine and iatrophysics at the time. For the Iatrophysicists section, I'm having a little trouble trying to show how these theories build off of each other, but I do agree that doing so would enrich the article a lot. I did mention how Glisson, Harvey, and Haller's work was based off of each other's, but I definitely could add more to that. Do you think you could elaborate more on how I could show how they are connected? Thanks so much for your awesome feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yennyyang (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

For the "Iatrophysicists" section, I added more information to the intro, detailing more about how the application of mechanics and instrumentation to the study of muscles developed over the years. It may seem repetitive considering the content of the "Subfields" section and Iatrophysicists themselves. Let me know your thoughts and thanks for the feedback, Hnguye68 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

For "Relationship with Iatrochemistry," I would like to see more of how iatrochemistry and iatrophysics came to be around the same period of time, and more details of how they built on each other's concepts or conflicted with each other (and how they resolved these conflicts). Both for this section and the section on "Influence of Medicine" (you might even consider adding a section on how iatrophysics developed, there could be more explanation of the societal or scientific context that aided the development of iatrophysics and iatrochemistry (for example, how Enlightenment and the emphasis on reason and the scientific method could have influenced these schools of medicine.

On a more general note, more wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles would be great for readers who would like to find out more about some of the people and concepts you have mentioned. Thanks for the great job!

KaylaMa (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback! I'm really glad you brought up the point about conflict between iatrophysics and iatrochemistry. I hadn't even considered points of conflict with each other. I edited the Relationship with Iatrochemistry section to elaborate more on that (I put in a few examples of how iatrophysicists and iatrochemists differed in their views of anatomical processes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yennyyang (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Good Job

Hey, I think you made very good contributions to this article however I would change a couple of structural and organizational parts of your edits. I thought that your paragraphs mirrored your sources a bit too much, especially the paragraphs starting with Francis Glisson, Albrecht von Haller, Sanctorio Sanctorio, and Niels Stensen. Also they were written in an almost identical scheme. Other wise, I thought you did a good job! Nikkilopezsuarez (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I rewrote the paragraphs on the last two figures (Sanctorio and Stensen) in attempt to reflect source content and avoid mirroring language. Let me know what you think. Also, how should identical scheme be addressed? I think given that section focuses on giving overviews brief overviews of various figures that a having a bio/summary for each figure inevitably leaves little room for different structuring. Would like to know how to rearrange the presented information (typically a little bit of context and explanation of the contribution made)? Thanks for the feedback!

Hnguye68 (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC) You did a great job at re-editing the article to be more original and more under wiki guidelines. I would fix the identical structure of the schemes by maybe in some paragraphs introducing with the person first and in other paragraphs introduce with the advancement that they contributed. This does not really affect the content of the essay, as much as the eases the fluidity and adds diversity in your writing. 17:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hey, good job on your article! One thing I noticed which could be improved is connecting ideas within sections better. It sometimes seemed like sections were composed of strings of facts and didn't act as an organic whole. Ideally, ideas would flow smoothly from one to the other and all clearly fit within a certain topic. The section on "Fluids" is one area where this could be improved. I think a few nicely placed transitions between sentences and clearer/more developed topic sentences at the start would definitely help alleviate this problem. The sentences also seemed a little bit abrupt, such as this one in the same section: "System consisted of arteries, veins, and vasculature verified through experiment and microscope by Malphigi's observations of capillaries in animal lung tissue." Additionally, I think the "Iatrophysicists" section could be developed through the inclusion of more details. Otherwise, I think the article would benefit if you took that section out since it's very vague and general as is.Acewind88 (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Medical physics

The article needs to describe the difference between iatrophysics and modern-day medical physics. Is it the same thing? --Inc (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Inc (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)