Talk:Humboldtian science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Peer review by Christy:
I think the intro gives a pretty good start at outlining the basics of your subject, but remember that this is a short abstract for those lazy readers (as Sage put it :D) who just want the gist of the subject - who, what, when, where, how/why, roughly. You could combine the first two sentences of the intro to take away the choppiness (also in other parts of the intro); for example, something like "...term given to the movement in science in 19th century that..." and then brief explanation. I think a time frame is pretty important in history, so you could write what preceded Humboldtian science and what succeeded it; mentioning him as a Romantic in the intro is also key, since he was a very prominent one. Maybe you could put the years of his life in parentheses next to his name, and if you want (though less important) you could put the year of the books in parentheses next to the titles. To answer the how/why, you could mention his application of lab techniques into the real world (significance). Also, the 1st sentence of the "Impact of Humboldtian science" section would be perfect in the intro as well. I think you did a great job at breaking up the essay into sections, it's easy to read and follow, great organization.
Peer Review by Lauren: I think the introduction provides a good basis for the article, but in the first sentence you could say something more descriptive about Humboldtian science, like "...a term given to the 19th century scientific movement that involved the use of precise measurement to understand the interconnectedness of nature," or combine the first two sentences. Also, like Christy said, you could include the idea that Humboldt was a Romantic in the intro, as well as a sentence about the impact of Humboldtian science. I think you deal well with the definition of Humboldtian science and the "terrestrial physicist," but maybe you could include a few examples of the kinds of forces measured. In the Humboldt's Equilibrium section, I like how you use biodistribution to demonstrate Humbodlt's equilibrium, but I'm not sure what you mean in the last paragraph by "isothermal lines preserved local peculiarities within a general regularity." Overall, I like the way you chose to divide the paper, and the impact of Humboldtian science section is particularly useful in rooting the movement in practical, specific examples.
Peer review by Nick: I think that the subject was well written. The ideas put across about Humboldtian science were well planned and executed due to your ability to break up the article so well. THe ideas put foreward were well represented but I think they were alittle long and drawn out. Though I think that the article presents its case well it could be better if it were more cogent and precise. Also like Christy said I think that a timeline toexplain how Humboldtian science arose and waned is important to putting it in good context.
Review by Mike:
Good Job. I really liked how you organized your topic. The concise subsections made everything very easy to find and read. My one suggestion is to flesh out what "reimaging" America means, as you mention it only once in your 'Impact' section, and fail to explain it. Other than that, great job.
Peer Review By Aidan: I think you did a very good job of encompassing the important concepts involved in Humboldtian science in an organized and easy to read manner. Something that you may want to add to is the introduction. Since your article is so well organized, I think that if you outlined the main topics of your article in your introduction it would make it easier for the reader to find further information on each concept quickly. Another thing that you may or may not want to consider is noting the significance of Malcolm Nicolas and Susan Cannon in your Humboldtian Science Defined paragraph (this may not be necessary to do). I know that you have their works listed in your sources but it could possibly supply assurance to the reader that the individuals’ opinions of whom you are referencing are of importance if you state that they have particular degrees or declare what they’ve written. The only thing that I had trouble understanding that you may want to clarify is the concept of isothermal lines, possibly defining isotherm could help with the understanding of this idea. Overall, you did a great overview of this topic.
Pier Review Jaymie The introduction was very well written, and it gives the reader a good, quick view into the subject like it was supposed to. Great job on splitting the article into sections. It really helps to have it so well organized so the reader can just flow from one part to the next. One thought would maybe be in the section of humboldtain science defined to number and list the four elements just in order to give the reader a quicker view. I felt the article was really well written, and it was hard to find anything to criticize at all. I do agree that the defining of the 'reimaging' term would help to the clarity of the end of the article.
