Talk:Harry J. Buncke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
This needs help, and have deleted it until it can be rewritten:
"He has been visiting professor and has delivered distinguished lectureships at more than 50 institutions, is the author of 15 movies and television tapes, four books, and more than 400 publications."
"distinguished lectureships"? What is a lectureship? And what makes it distinguished? This is just bad writing. The 400 publications and four book should be in the article, but the rest is peripheral to the average reader. If you include it, at least change the wording.
There are just too many superlatives and gushing prose in this article. It reads like a bad puff piece, which diminishes what looks like a (legitimately) notable subject.MollyBloom 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
If the external links below support statements made in the body of the article, use them as citations in the body of the article. Statements or claims in the text need to be properly referenced.
For example:
"...a second landmark that ushered in an era where replantation of amputated digits and extremeties would become widely performed." A journal article does not support this. I don't doubt that this is true, but a superlative statement like this really needs to be referenced. If one of the external links supports this, cite it in the text.MollyBloom 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The journal article describes the event, context to the event is provided in the descriptive. It would not be customary to repetatively cite every two or three words when summarizing historical developments in surgery or medicine. A number of the articles and sketches linked also reinforce the same messageDroliver 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, I agree that a citation is not needed for every two or three words. However, it is important to cite major claims of accompishment. That had not been done. I agree with David Reuben's comments at this point. There is still a need for additional references (not written by Buncke) as DR suggests.jgwlaw 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The journal article describes the event, context to the event is provided in the descriptive. It would not be customary to repetatively cite every two or three words when summarizing historical developments in surgery or medicine. A number of the articles and sketches linked also reinforce the same messageDroliver 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Buncke is referred to as "father of microsurgery" in about 100 different places. This nickname does not need it's own reference[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]Droliver 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, at least two editors believe such a claim does need a reference. If it is cited in so many places, why not add it? Then add the sentence back. jgwlaw 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Gee DrOliver - of course "father of microsurgery" needs a citation (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence) especial for the rest of us outside of the field who may never have heard of him before - but only need choose one good ref (I suggest from an official body such as American Association of Surgeons, or whatever, rather than a newspaper quote) :-) David Ruben Talk 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, but Oliver seems unwilling to provide it. It's in at least 100 different places, so why not provide it?jgwlaw 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please actually read the reference at the end of the paragraph, which in fact also uses that term.Droliver 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- A reference properly goes after the claim. I added it there, so yes, its fine. However, the "Top 10" does not have a reference that supports the claim. Why don't you find it, and we can add it there. Also, it might be a good idea to use reference formatting here, with a section for references at the end of the article.jgwlaw 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- agreed. I will try to find better sourcing for that. RobDroliver 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- A reference properly goes after the claim. I added it there, so yes, its fine. However, the "Top 10" does not have a reference that supports the claim. Why don't you find it, and we can add it there. Also, it might be a good idea to use reference formatting here, with a section for references at the end of the article.jgwlaw 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please actually read the reference at the end of the paragraph, which in fact also uses that term.Droliver 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, but Oliver seems unwilling to provide it. It's in at least 100 different places, so why not provide it?jgwlaw 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Over 400 publications...
" Over 400 articles, books, and chapters have been published from our service, and hundreds of scientific papers presented globally. We continue to attract the best and brightest plastic surgeons nationally and internationally to teach, train, and lead." This is not the same as what you wrote. Is there some other reference that supports the number of books and publications that this man wrote?MollyBloom 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] could we write this article properly please, and see whose biog hangs off it later?
Microsurgery seems to me an article which should take the reader through a sweep of history, biring in various people who did first or early work, some of whom will have been notable enough in other ways that they obviously need more than just a mention and get their own article.
I'm somewhat gratified to see that the top hit on Google for "Induction of immunity"[7] is the WP article I started by working on the same basis with regard to that topic. It seems to me a general approach with some sense. Midgley 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
