Talk:Robert Hanham Collyer

Ref error messages

There seems to be some problem with the entries for:
(a) * Elliotson, John (April 1855). "On the claims of Dr. Robert H. Collyer in reference ..." The Zoist: A Journal of Cerebral Physiology & Mesmerism, and Their Applications to Human Welfare. 13 (49): 61–68.
and
(b) * Richards, Irving T. (June 1934). "Mary Gove Nichols and John Neal". The New England Quarterly. 7 (2): 335–55.
In relation to both these entries, the "Preview" displays a warning that "One or more ((cite journal)) templates have maintenance messages".
Given that there are no other details/instructions provided, I have no idea about how to proceed. Can you please explain; and, also, direct me to
(i) what the specific problem is, and
(ii) how that problem can be remedied. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Lindsay658 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lindsay658: I remedied the problem with this edit. The citation templates automatically generate CITEREF ids from the supplied parameters. If you try to generate the same CITEREF with the |ref= parameter, this maintenance message about duplicates appears. It took a lot of careful parsing of the instructions at Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default to figure this out, then some experimentation to verify it. And I may still be doing it wrong, but the maintenance messages are now gone. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Lindsay658 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lindsay658: Sections on an article talk page should not be blanked, even if you were the one who added the material. It's not a big thing, but it's only on your own user talk page where you have this freedom. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Lindsay658 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I will start reviewing this article and come back with my opinion in a day or two. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction

I enjoyed reading the article on mr. Collyer, however, I was concerned about lots of ambigous points in the article, so that in its current form the article give more questions that presents the answers. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

According to MOS:INTRO, the lead section should accessible to as broad an audience as possible: where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas; where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined so that the subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. Specifically, the term "phreno-magnetism" is linked, but not briefly defined. Please consider defining it brefly in the lead as required by MOS:INTRO. Let me give more details on this objection:

1. the purpose of the lead section is to provide an overview that can be easily understood by readers from various backgrounds and levels of familiarity with the subject matter. By including definitions or explanations for uncommon terms like "phreno-magnetism," we ensure that all readers have sufficient context and understanding;
2. defining "phreno-magnetism" would enhance reader comprehension right from the beginning of their engagement with the article, allowing them to grasp its significance without having to rely on external sources or scroll through multiple sections;
3. by briefly defining "phreno-magnetism" within parentheses after its first mention in plain language accessible even to non-experts (e.g., explaining it as Collyer's practice aimed at activating specific parts of one's brain using mesmeristic influence), we can adhere better both stylistically and functionally while catering comprehensively towards diverse readerships' needs; however, the term "mesmeristic" itself should be defined.

It was mentioned that mr. Collyer was involved in a number of scandals and rivalries, but only one example was given (a claim that he originated inhalation anesthesia for surgery before William T. G. Morton, who is generally credited with the discovery); still, it was not specified in the lead of whether his claim was substantiated or not, and whether William T. G. Morton was indeed the inventor for inhalation anesthesia, and also it was mentioned that William T. G. Morton was "generally credited", but not mentioned by whom (attribution missing), so that the lead section gives more ambiguity than information, so that the lead section could benefit from providing more clarity on these points. pecifically, let me give you more detailed explanation on this issue:

1. while it is mentioned that there were scandals and rivalries involving Collyer, only one example is provided without further elaboration or evidence supporting his claims against Morton;
2. this lack of specificity leaves readers with unanswered questions about other scandals or conflicts he may have been involved in;
3. the statement mentioning that William T.G Morton is "generally credited" as the inventor does not provide any attribution for this general consensus within medical history or research communities;
4. without proper citation, it becomes difficult for readers to understand where this credit comes from and how widely accepted it truly is;
5. there exists ambiguity over invention status, so that by not explicitly stating whether Collyer's claim was substantiated or refuted, uncertainty remains regarding his role in inventing inhalation anesthesia compared to Morton's contribution;
6. to improve upon these issues, adding additional context through reliable sources would help clarify both sides' positions and present a balanced view of their contributions toward inhalation anesthesia discovery.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Body

Based on the information provided in the article, there are a few important details that appear to be missing or could benefit from further clarification. Could you please expand the article or explain on the talk page on why you didnt' cover the following aspects:

1. the reason for Collyer's involvement in scandals and rivalries is not clearly explained, and it would be helpful to know what caused these conflicts and how they impacted his reputation.
2. more information about Collyer's career as an inventor would provide context for his achievements beyond phrenology and mesmerism, so that details about his patents and their significance would enhance our understanding of his contributions;
3. although it is mentioned that Congress considered a reward for painless surgery methods, no explanation is given regarding why ether was so much in demand during this time period, adding more ambiguity;
4. the circumstances surrounding Collyer's claim to have invented ether anesthesia before William T.G Morton should probably be explored further with supporting evidence or opposing arguments presented;
5. additional insight into Collyer's later years after returning to England, particularly concerning his inventions' success or impact, would help complete the picture of his life story;
6. could you please also explain on the Talk page how did you select the patents and publications in the list and why it is not a full list of publications, and which criteria did you use to make the selection to include the selected patents?
7. the list of selected publications list dates that are beyound the life of Collyer: please consider consistent dates in the list of selected publications, or clearly indicate on the Talk page why particular dates are way beyound the lifespan of mr. Collyer.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall

The prose is clear, concise, but it is not understandable to an appropriately broad audience straight at the beginning, since the terms like phreno-magnetism" are not defined as required; however, the spelling and grammar are correct. Therefore, the article in its current form does not comply to the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections. While the article is verifiable with no original research, it is not broad enough in coverage, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the Lead and Body sections. It does not adequately address the main aspects of the topic. Although it is neutral, stable and illustrated, the deficiencies in the lead and body sections and in the lists are major and cannot be quickly fixed by trivial updates. Therefore, I consider that the article does not comply to the good article criteria. However, the article is a potential GA article upon improvement, please consieder imporoving it and submitting again for GA review. As for now, to meet Good Article standards, substantial improvements need addressing core concerns as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, the article does not pass the GA criteria.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-GA1 discussion

Hello, Lindsay658!

According to a Wikipedia Good Article criteria 3.a, the GA article should be broad in its coverage, so that the reviewer should make sure that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. This means that the article should not omit any major facts or details that are significant to the topic. It should provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, including its history, notable controversies, different perspectives, and current status. However, it is important to note that "broad in its coverage" does not mean the article should contain every minor detail or event related to the topic. Instead, it should focus on the information that readers are most likely to be looking for and which aspects are most important to understanding the topic. The article should strive to stay balanced and neutral, representing all viewpoints fairly and without bias. Lastly, while the article should be thorough, it should also be accessible and understandable to non-experts, avoiding unnecessary jargon and complexity. The goal is to provide a well-rounded, informative, and engaging resource for anyone interested in the topic.

The understanding of broadness in coverage or completeness is a subjective matter; each reviewer has their own understanding of these notions of broadness and completeness. What is enough for one reviewer may not be enough for another, and vice versa. The nominee may also disagree with the reviewer on whether a particular aspect should be or should not be covered.

If a reviewer raised a particular point that the nominee considers irrelevant or not worth mentioning, it would always be good for the nominee to start a topic on the Talk page and explain why they believe this issue is irrelevant. This may attract the opinions of other Wikipedia editors.

A new reviewer, when checking whether the nominee addressed the objections of the first reviewer, may read these arguments on the Talk page. If they find the arguments reasonable, they would not demand again that they be addressed. This process ensures a fair and comprehensive review of the article. It also encourages open dialogue and collaboration, which are key principles of interaction among the the Wikipedia editors. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)