Talk:Louise Boursier

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Breahmckay, Chanel1415, Simi1218, JMGramajo, Wilc0012, Jazmincarvajal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Errors

In the references throughout the web and also in printed books I have available, there is a lot of misinformation, as lots of authors seem to have quoted from fourth-hand sources of her time period. But here is the only place where I could find the wrong name of Lou[i/y][s/z]e Bourgeois' husband: Fellow. Even the biographies cited here, he was a Martin Boursier (although he might have been a nice fellow ;), so I'm changing that detail. That also means, at the moment there are two surnames in this article title, Bourgeois and Boursier. It seems that she practiced under her birthname, so that Louise Bourgois is the correct lemma. Otherwise, if you go strictly after marriage (and IF it was a custom in France at that time to change your name after marriage, which I can't judge) the article should be Louise Boursier. For the german article, I also relied on a french source, that adds lots of details to her life. --Enyavar (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this. Thanks to the nominator for his interest in improving Wikipedia's coverage of science and medicine. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As I read this entry, I am concerned about copyright problems, specifically close paraphrasing, or the use of wording from another source with only superficial modification. Here are a few examples:

• Goodell: "she was taught to read and write" → "she was taught to read and write" (this might be worth leaving out, as it can be inferred from her becoming the first woman to write about childbirth practices)

• Perkins: "then probably by 1586, and certainly by 1588" → "then probably by 1586 and definitely by 1588"

• Dunn: "In 1589 Henri IV (1553–1610) attacked Paris. With her husband away in the army, Louise fled behind the walls of the city..." → "King Henri IV attacked Paris in 1589; Bourgeois had three children at the time. Bourgeois fled behind the city walls of Paris with her children for protection, since her husband was away in the army."

• Perkins: "the examining panel had to consist of a physician, two surgeons, and two midwives" → "The examining panel consisted of a physician, 2 surgeons, and 2 experienced midwives"

These were just examples that I noted from the early portions of the article. The rest of the entry needs to be reviewed for this issue.

There are also some tone/neutrality issues. In the lead, there is a mention of Boursier raising the status of the profession from folklore to science, but there seems to be little support for this idea even in the body of the entry. WP:Peer review may be helpful to stamp out such issues.

A GOCE request may also be helpful for this article; there are some odd constructions, such as "which however did not bring in enough money..." and "just outside Paris called, the".

I am sure that we can work on the writing issues, but copyright problems fall under the quick fail criteria at WP:GAFAIL and should be addressed before re-nomination.

Thank you for your work on this entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the suggestions. It looks like I have my work cut out for me on this one. I'll take your great ideas and see if I can't improve the article. After I think I am done, THEN I'll run it through GOCE to have it polished as you suggest. I'm thinking all this will take me a month or so -> AFTER that then I'll renominate GAN. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup performed

I was thinking of picking this up for GA review, but I then I thought it needed significant cleanup and that it would not pass GA nomination in that state. I decided it would be better to just help it along. I have done nothing to check sources or look for anything else required for a GA. However, this may help it get past a hump for the next round. Hope it helps and I hope someone will pick it up soon for another review. --Eewilson (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this. Thanks to the nominator for his interest in improving Wikipedia's coverage of science and medicine. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As I read this entry, I am concerned about copyright problems, specifically close paraphrasing, or the use of wording from another source with only superficial modification. Here are a few examples:

• Goodell: "she was taught to read and write" → "she was taught to read and write" (this might be worth leaving out, as it can be inferred from her becoming the first woman to write about childbirth practices)

• Perkins: "then probably by 1586, and certainly by 1588" → "then probably by 1586 and definitely by 1588"

• Dunn: "In 1589 Henri IV (1553–1610) attacked Paris. With her husband away in the army, Louise fled behind the walls of the city..." → "King Henri IV attacked Paris in 1589; Bourgeois had three children at the time. Bourgeois fled behind the city walls of Paris with her children for protection, since her husband was away in the army."

• Perkins: "the examining panel had to consist of a physician, two surgeons, and two midwives" → "The examining panel consisted of a physician, 2 surgeons, and 2 experienced midwives"

These were just examples that I noted from the early portions of the article. The rest of the entry needs to be reviewed for this issue.

There are also some tone/neutrality issues. In the lead, there is a mention of Boursier raising the status of the profession from folklore to science, but there seems to be little support for this idea even in the body of the entry. WP:Peer review may be helpful to stamp out such issues.

A GOCE request may also be helpful for this article; there are some odd constructions, such as "which however did not bring in enough money..." and "just outside Paris called, the".

I am sure that we can work on the writing issues, but copyright problems fall under the quick fail criteria at WP:GAFAIL and should be addressed before re-nomination.

Thank you for your work on this entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the suggestions. It looks like I have my work cut out for me on this one. I'll take your great ideas and see if I can't improve the article. After I think I am done, THEN I'll run it through GOCE to have it polished as you suggest. I'm thinking all this will take me a month or so -> AFTER that then I'll renominate GAN. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)