This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles
This article suffers from several problems, not least of which is that the subject doesn't seem to be what the title says. As a result, we have a weird section header, identical to the article title. A big part of the article is devoted to biographical information on two people (one of them having his own article), which does not belong here. The huge excerpts are really undue, too. The article doesn't follow WP:MOS, either. In addition, it contains a lot of exquisite detail, too much so, I would say. The article (despite having an enormous amount of sources) contains a lot of unsourced statements (just one example: "Apart from providing valuable literature reviews and announcements of new publications, The Zoist was a constant, reliable source of information, disciplinary interaction, original accounts of phenomena, relevant case studies of its application to wide range of conditions, ranging from epilepsy, stammering, and headache, to torticollis, asthma, and rheumatism, and extensive reports of pertinent innovations and discoveries.") Many other things, appear to constitute original research and/or synthesis. In short, this article needs a huge amount of work... --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, Thanks for your comments.
As one extremely familiar with the phrenology/mesmerism/animal magnetism/phrenomesmerism/hypnotism interactions of the time, it is abundantly clear that The Zoist is a highly significant resource; yet greatly overlooked. I think that much of your criticism (above) relating to The Zoist itself is inaccurate, poorly informed, and unfounded. Accept your comments on Elliotson and Engledue; and have corrected the article on the first with the information deleted from here, and created an article on the second -- and then removed all but the briefest mention from this article of either man. Best, Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits, they improved the focus of the article. However, if you re-read my comments, I didn't criticize The Zoist or its notability in the slightest. I am criticizing the way the article is written. It contains a lot of OR and SYNTH and basically reads as an original essay about this journal and its influence. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. The article looks like an excellent start for a paper in a history of science journal, but that is not what we do here. Please read the guidelines on OR and SYNTH and hopefully you'll see what I mean. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
