Jump to content

Talk:Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism for issues which need to be addressed. Srobodao84 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Srobodao84 (talk · contribs) 03:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srobodao84 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Well written Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) In the first paragraph of the article, I recommend to the authors to explain "what" the commission is and "why" it was established. A reader who is unfamiliar with the topic of "animal magnetism" does not immediately understand what you are talking about. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Reference are good and well cited Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) yes Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No plagisrism, checked with grammarly Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article deeply delves into the topic, but an historic reviewer is needed Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) In my opinion, the first part of the article is too broad and explores aspects that are not necessarily relevant. Furthermore, the core of the article (the commission description) is described after more than 4000 words. I suggest reducing the text in the first part to make the article more focused on the topic. The section "Four Vestiges of the Practice of Contact Magnetization" also seems superfluous or misplaced. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    this sentence is strong "These facts expose the error in the commonly expressed (in modern literature) and extremely misleading misrepresentation of affairs; namely, the assertion that the Commissions had agreed that, in each case, Mesmer had" cured "his patients:" "and probably need more references. Don't know Don't know
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass the authors expanded and improved the page as requested. However, a historical peer review is suggested. But from a formal point of view the article is a good article.

Discussion

[edit]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk21:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Lindsay658 (talk). Nominated by BuySomeApples (talk) at 23:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I think the alternate DYK is more interesting than the original, and could serve to bring more people to read the article (which might fit the first objective of DYKs better). A. C. Santacruz Talk 01:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P2

Main image in lead section

[edit]

The current preview image is that of the Template:Research sidebar. The subject seems very broad based on the TOC alone. But I think a collage with some of the artistic depictions, paintings of relevant scientists or the cover of the report could be better. --TwainNeverSaidThat 22:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]