Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Hippocrates

Hippocrates

I've been away from this article for a few weeks and would like some feedback to help me further improve it. I hope to make it an FAC soon... -- Rmrfstar 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a few hours of deliberation, I have finally split the article into "Hippocrates" and "Hippocratic Corpus"... or I am about to: the articles-to-be are in my workspaces. If no one has any objections, I shall complete the procedure soon. -- Rmrfstar 02:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerge complete! How does it look? -- Rmrfstar 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the unmerge.--Yannismarou 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gzkn

Well researched and comprehensive with respect to the Hippocratic Corpus. However, I came away from this article knowing much more about the Hippocratic Corpus than Hippocrates. I would recommend separating them into two different articles. The prose needs some major polishing before it meets FA's 1a criteria. I would suggest trying to find someone more familiar with this topic than me to give it a run through and extensive copy edit. Specific comments:

Why not use "prominent" instead of "outstanding", as one of the other common definitions of the word would violate NPOV?

I like "outstanding" better, but if it's a big deal, I'd agree to change it to "prominent" or "eminent".

since it wasn't compiled until around A.D. 200 Avoid contractions in articles.
Wikilink "Askleipion" in the caption.
"however unreliable, on Hippocrates's person" Weird use of the possessive there. Why not just "on Hippocrates's life" or "on Hippocrates"?

Neither of those would have the intended meaning. I believe this is correct English: see definition 3 at http://www.answers.com/person&r=67.

"but Polybus was Hippocrates’ true successor according to Galen," Who's Galen? Give some context here instead of defining later.
"Soranus says Hippocrates was taught medicine..." Abruptly switches to present tense, when in the previous para, the equivalent was "Soranus stated that Hippocrates's father...".
"Herodicus of Selymbria: Plato" Is that supposed to be a semicolon instead?

No.

Avoid passive tense (which riddles this article).
- There was the Knidian school of medicine which was focused towards diagnosis --> "The Knidian school of medicine focused on diagnosis" (note also that towards is not the right preposition there) Also, "dependent upon" is probably not the best phrase. Try "because of".
- The focus of Hippocratic medicine was on --> "Hippocratic medicine focused on"
- In the Hippocratic work On the physician, it is recommended that physicians --> "The Hippocratic work, On the physician, recommended that physicians "
The Hippocratic school, the Koan school, however, was more successful. Because of the commas, "however" would be better at the beginning of the sentence here, no matter what Strunk and White say.
It could effectively treat many diseases, yet it allowed for a great development in clinical practice... What's that "yet" doing there? The latter half of the sentence isn't contradicting the first...
...he held many pseudo-scientific convictions based on bad anatomy and physiology such as Humorism. Ambiguous use of "such as" (do you see why?). The "such as Humorism" should be placed immediately after "convictions". --> "pseudo-scientific convictions, such as Humorism, which were based on bad anatomy and physiology." Also, there are more descriptive words than "bad" out there.
On a similar note: result of an imbalance of the four humours in the body, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis) --> "result of an imbalance in the body of the four humours, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis)"
Hippocratic medicine was, humbly, very kind to the patient, sterile and gentle whenever possible. Humbly? What's that doing there?

Better?

Despite all of its advancements in medical theory, it was truly in discipline, strict professionalism and rigorous practice that Hippocratic medicine excelled. Weasely: "it was truly". Also needs a cite.

I don't think this is weasly, though I did include a citation.

The second paragraph of Professionalism changes tenses three times.
"To him medicine owes the art of clinical inspection and observation"[4] For this reason, he may termed only the "Father of Clinical Medicine". What's going on here?

This passage looks fine to me.

textbooks, lectures, research, notes and even philosophical essays "even" is not necessary.
There are a number of case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus, 42 to be exact. --> "There are 42 case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus."
It must be taken into account that the Corpus is very large, and was written by many authors. It makes sense that not all of it is of this “laconic” style... but most of it is. Phrases such as "it must be taken into account" and "it makes sense that" should be avoided. Second sentence is not encyclopedic, especially with the ellipsis.
It is notable that <-- GAH! Not another!
This was in Latin... Ambiguous "this".
This was scholarly, yet sometimes inaccurate and awkward. More ambiguous "this". Also, without a cite, the sentence violates NPOV.
Hippocrates was the first great physician, and for a long time, the last While many people might agree, this statement violates NPOV.
And yet, Hippocratic medicine is far removed from modern medicine. "And yet" is not necessary.
Hippocrates and his followers identified many diseases and medical conditions for the first time. Such as?

Such as those listed below it.

Hippocrates is in his description of the symptomology, physical findings, surgical treatment... Huh?
Much of what he said is very useful to students of pulmonary medicine and surgery today. --> "His teachings remain relevant to contemporary students of pulmonary medicine and surgery."
old doctor is reinforced by our busts of him Avoid first person.
He, and the beliefs that he embodied, are considered medical ideals. "He is, above all, the exemplar of that flexible, critical, well-poised attitude of mind, ever on the lookout for sources of error, which is the very essence of the scientific spirit."[4] "His figure... stands for all time as that of the ideal physician”, inspiring the medical profession since his death. Don't list quotes without specifying who said them.
This account is very much in conflict with unfinished sentence.
With this legendary figure, comes a legendary genealogy... NPOV violation. Gzkn 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have dealt with all of these, except those that I have commented on. -- Rmrfstar 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

I've already reviewed this article, which is obviously good. I may sound repetitive, but some of my current remarks are exactly the same with the previous ones I had made:

"is commonly regarded as one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine". I'm afraid this could be regarded as POV.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the first definition of outstanding is, "Standing out among others of its kind; prominent. See synonyms at noticeable."[1] Hippocrates is undeniably this.

If you say so! I just have noticed that Wikipedia is sometimes weird with POV. But your argument sounds convincing!--Yannismarou 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "biography" is short. It is also short in Britannica and I also know that most details about his life are unknown. But it would be nice if we had some more things about him (if there is anything more available!).

Wouldn't it be nice! I haven't been able to find any more information, though I have recognized this as an issue. A reader must take into account, however, the "Legends" section which details some highly unreliable stories of his life.

Again the red links! I know it is not a prerequisite for FA status, but they are not nice. And in FAC I read more and more critical comments about them.

Better?

In "Methods of Treatment" I see a ^[specify]. Why?

I shall fix this.

"The Oath" is stubby. And I think that some other sub-sections could also be expanded a bit.

I agree. "The Oath" itself is one of the most important topics of the article and should be expanded.

"Medical practitioners who followed him sometimes moved backwards. For instance, "after the Hippocratic period, the practice of taking clinical case-histories died out..."" I don't like the way the quote is inserted here. I'd prefer to know who says these things in the text, because it is an assessment of some importance.

Fixed?

I think these stubby paragraphs in "Legends" should be restructured (merged or expanded).

Have dealt with.

Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.

Done!

For me, the "See also" section is long. The tendency is not to use so much now "see also" sections. And I also see there red links! Do you intend to create these articles? Otherwise, I think you should move them to external links.--Yannismarou 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the entire See also was a list of his namesakes (after I removed the redundant "ancient greek medicine"), I renamed the section to "Namesakes"... how does this work? Let me try to create these redlinks. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]