Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hippocrates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hippocrates

Vital article which is currently a Good article. I think it should be Featured as it meets all of the criteria. Note that Hippocratic corpus is an entirely separate article; this article is about the man Hippocrates and the Hippocratic school of medicine. This is a self-nomination which has had two peer reviews: One and Two. Thanks for reading! -- Rmrfstar 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Whatever it is that you did to the bottom of the article, please undo it: I usually check the structure of the article first (WP:MOS, WP:LAYOUT, WP:EL, correct referencing from WP:RS, etc.), and I can't even sort through it in that form. I did see external jumps and lot of listiness - please convert external jumps to wikified text or referenced statements. Sandy (Talk) 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What can't you sort out? What external linking is bad? What do you want me to "undo"? An external links section can be added, but I don't think it will be all that helpful. Is there a real problem with the tabling system I've implemented? I think it just saves us from looking at lots of ugly whitespace... -- Rmrfstar 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Another editor removed the non-standard tables at the end of the article, and Rmrfstar reverted it. Haven't checked referencing because it's hard to read, but there are external jumps, listiness, copy edit needs (observe punctuation errors in Image section, as a quick example), mixed reference styles (Harvard inline and cite.php), choppy prose (numerous short choppy sentences and paragraphs), and I doubt an article this short on Hippocrates can be comprehensive. Get his cleaned up at peer review, and come back. Sandy (Talk) 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what's wrong with "external jumps"?

The only significant lists are inescapable: the ancestry of Hippocrates and namkesakes of Hippocrates.

What's wrong with the quite standard reference style used?

And I believe the article is comprehensive.

I will read through again for the "choppy prose" and "punctuation errors". -- Rmrfstar 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose because of unreadable format. Agree with Rmrfstar, the references are in a narrow column on the left--totally unreadable on my browser, references are a major part of well-researched papers and articles, standardizing the format is a high priority for institutions which publish peer-reviewed journals, so that readers know precisely how to glance at the references while reading to find what they need, totally distinct format forbids that. I keep thinking I'm looking at diffs, not the article. KP Botany 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you meant you agree with me :-) Sandy (Talk) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • --Well, heck if I can keep it straight ;-), and generally you're more detail oriented than I am. KP Botany 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As the references were unreadable in your browser, I've removed the tabling system. -- Rmrfstar 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I can read it and will do. KP Botany 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I have reviewed twice the article, and I think that the nominator has done his best.--Yannismarou 07:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - No mention of the Hippocratic Oath? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just removed a mention of this from the lead... but I do think it should be replaced. I also listed it under "namesakes", but I'll add another reference and sentence description in the body. -- Rmrfstar 11:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there should be some resolution in the article of whether Hippocrates himself wrote the oath. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Yikes, there are a ton of passive voice constructions. The lead is nearly half passive. Really, we can and should avoid passives. Geogre 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In some cases I agree, in others, use of the passive voice is not only necessary but beneficial. I have gone through the first half of the article, removing a number of bad examples per your suggestion, and I shall to more. I don't know how many more can come out of the lede, though. -- Rmrfstar 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comment - A bit haigiographic in places. Needs a rewrite which is centered on facts not flourish. Two examples: savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Despite all of its advancements in medical theory, it was truly in discipline, strict professionalism and rigorous practice that Hippocratic medicine excelled."

I think this is a good sentence which effectively conveys a very important quality of Hippocratic medicine. Would you suggest an alternative? I can think of none.

• • "For all of these above achievements, Hippocrates is widely considered the first great physician; however, for a long time, he was also the last."

Again, I see nothing wrong with this sentence. Remember that "great" is not necessarily a positive term. Hitler, for instance, was most certainly great. It is practically fact that Hippocrates was "great" physician and there was none similar for a long time. -- Rmrfstar 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Article is mostly based on his philosophy, and doesn't go into his biography much - whether info conflicts or not, it should still be discussed. Incomprehensive. LuciferMorgan 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is only Hippocratic "philosophy" that we know; there is very little biographical information available. Please see that I've included all possible material in the article under the "Biography" section and under "Legends" when deemed appropriate. -- Rmrfstar 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)