Talk:Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism

Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 23, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Template:Vital article

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Metaphysics GA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History of Science GA‑class Mid‑importance

	History of science portal 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.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine GA‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology GA‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

France GA‑class Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Your GA nomination of The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism

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

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

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Well written	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

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Reference are good and well cited	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	yes	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No plagisrism, checked with grammarly	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article deeply delves into the topic, but an historic reviewer is needed	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

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

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

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
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

Did you know nomination

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 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism's investigations are one of the earliest examples of blind experiments and controlled trials? Source: [1]
- ALT1:... that French king Louis XVI appointed Benjamin Franklin to head The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism? Source: p.161. Buranelli, V. (1975), The Wizard from Vienna: Franz Anton Mesmer, New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan. ISBN 978-0-698-10697-0

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Kopps
Comment: Article was previously nominated for DYK but the GA nom was pending so it was rejected.

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
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

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