Talk:Sociopolitical issues of anatomy in America in the 19th century

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Aeisenstadt1, Acewind88.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

March 2017

Wow! This is a super specific topic and you cover it really extensively. My only concern is that there is some extrapolation here and some of your comments lead to influencing conclusions. Regardless, this was so cool to read and a nice analysis of very direct subject.Aeisenstadt1 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi KaylaMa! I found this topic really interesting and definitely learned a lot from it. I think you do a great job summarizing the issues related to anatomy at the time in a neutral tone. There are just a few suggestions I have. Firstly, I think it would be helpful to mention the specific issues of anatomy in the beginning of the article, instead of simply stating that there were "widespread social and political shifts". This would provide a bit more context for readers, since the focus of the article is the actual issues of anatomy after all. Secondly, it would be great if you could include more statistical data or examples to demonstrate some of the points you make. For example, it would be more impactful if you had some numbers to show that grave robbing became "an increasingly profitable trade", or with the statement "These attacks were rampant among most medical schools" you could give some examples of schools. I understand it's really hard to find specific data like this, but if you do happen to find it, it would be a great addition. Lastly, I agree with the comment above: the last section on Anatomy Museums deviates from a neutral tone. It sounds like you're starting to make conclusions about the use of these museums, so it would be good to edit that. Overall, awesome job though! Acewind88 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a really great article! I like how you talk about the shift towards anatomical science, which set the medical profession apart. I thought that was an important point that was well stated, but I would try to emphaszie that more. Maybe even make a background information section that focuses on that and also sets the stage for the issues that you are going to talk about here. I agree with Acewind88 in that it would have been nice to see issues of anatomy in the beginning of the article. Also, I wonder if there is any other aspect of the topic that you could focus on, in addition to grave robbery, acts, and museums. Overall, really good job!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yennyyang (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I have fixed the areas raised, do feel free to tell me what you think and if there are more areas to work on! KaylaMa (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

some things

I'm reviewing this for DYK, but I'm running into a few problems, which I'll list here as I find them. User:KaylaMa, you've done good work: are you prepared to finish it? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am not convinced of the title. "Bodysnatching in the Nineteenth Century" is not much better, of course--but "Sociopolitical issues of..." is also a bit essay-like, not to mention a bit vague: we're not discussing every conceivable issue here.
• We really need page numbers for the citations to the Traffic book. There's a fancy way of doing that, with Template:Sfn, or you cite "Sappol 22" parenthetically, with the book listed in a Bibliography section. Without page numbers the claims are impossible to verify
• I placed an "explanation needed" tag at "denunciation"--see text in text.
• I cannot find verified, in the Atlantic article, the claim that the efficacy of traditional medicine was "denounced" (I have my doubts about that word in the first place--and the "denunciation" in the Atlantic, if that's the denunciation referred to, is from 1910, so it can't be denouncing 19th-century developments).
• There's a cn-tag at the end of at least one paragraph.

Note to Drmies: the final class meeting of the semester was April 28. I do hope you hear from KaylaMa, but if there isn't any response within the standard seven days from today, there probably won't be one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• In which case we can close this. I'm trying to clean up the nominations page a bit. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: thanks for the comments! I have made the edits you mentioned regarding further explanations and page numbers, though I am not sure what the title should change to. Would "Medical grave robbery and popular anatomy in the nineteenth century" be good? It sounds rather verbose. I am happy to continue editing the article, classes have not ended for this week. KaylaMa (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for dropping by. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a Wikipedia expert at our beck and call? Oh, wait: Keilana! You're needed here for some titular advice. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No expert here; but I do know how to research, read and edit. And the DYK has now been moved to Prep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Sociopolitical issues of anatomy in the United States in the 19th century"

The article appears entirely about the USA, and "America" is a rather informal, unencyclopedic term for that country, as well as being somewhat ambiguous. 110.33.162.61 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)