Talk:Andreas Vesalius

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ruotolo1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ruotolo1.

Suggestions

When talking about Vesalius and his human dissections I believe it would be beneficial to mention that he stole the bodies he dissected. When he did the dissections it was in secret while he was a medical student. The first citation, ."Vesalius at 500". The Physician's Palette., still does not work. When it is clicked on the link takes you to a website page that is completely empty and for sale. This needs to be updated or removed. The organization of the article is a little confusing especially when I got to the section labeled Imperial Physician and Death; those should be separate. My suggestion for the organization is as follows: 1. Early life, 2. Education, 2.1 Medical Career, 3. Career or Jobs, 3.1 Imperial Physicians, 4. Accomplishments, 4.1 Scientific Findings, 4.2 Publications, 5. Death, 6. Scientific and Historical Impact.Ruotolo1 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This article could use more excepts, especially from his publication “De Humani Corporis Fabrica”. Images could be added from “De Humani Corporis Fabrica” to sections like the muscular system to illustrate Vesalius’ findings. His work on the skeletal system could be expanded upon for more than two sentences. While there were complaints about this article not being neutral and not showing the brilliance of Vesalius, I believe it has been fixed. Erinvan (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Some of the information on Galen seems like it could be biased. He was the first one to look into anatomy and did discover a lot of information even though he used animals instead of humans. He should be given more credit for what he did. Some of the information in this article had no sources at all and I would have liked to learn more about what is in these sections. I wish I could have read more information on the scientific findings of Vesalius. Some more diagrams or pictures would have also been a nice contribution. The first reference titled, "Vesalius at 500". The Physician's Palette did not work, it should be removed or updated. Vincemad (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Vincemad

Untitled

Why has no one actually made this page detailed and concise? If William Harvey or Ambroise Pare can have a lengthy acticle, then why does Vesalius have a very small paragraph? I think that he should have a longer paragraph describing his works. anon

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andreas Vesalius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927043755/http://www.vhsbb.ch/asp/pdf/senuni_07021213_zf_kurz.pdf to http://www.vhsbb.ch/asp/pdf/senuni_07021213_zf_kurz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

3 Improvements

1. I believe that the section on Galen made him seem like he didn't know what he was doing, when he really was a smart man. Maybe some of the sources used were biased 2. I found some of the most interesting information in the article to not have sources to refer to 3. I feel that when talking about the different systems in the body (respiratory and vascular system etc.), they could've went into more depth about the impact Vesalius made on mankind due to his findings. Sabrinamarx (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Few Suggestions

I seemed to get a bias sense from some of the wording used when referring to Galen’s work compared to Vesalius. It mentions in the medical career and accomplishment section that Galen assumed a lot of his work based on the assumptions from animals, and basically that Vesalius’ information trumps his. But I think Galen’s deserves a better perspective and view for his work to prevent bias. Also for paragraph 4 in the section of “Imperial physician and death”, they say “Some said”. But who is that pertaining too? That same information is sourced from a Dutch language reference which is hard to validate. A lot of information seems to not be cited. Mitch8335 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In the scientific findings section there seem to be a lot of opinionated words. For instance it is written Vesalius' work in on the vascular and circulatory systems was his greatest achievement to modern medicine. I believe this could be a biased statement and that saying one of his greatest achievements would be more fair to the article. It seems as though a couple of facts are missing citations such as the ones at the end of other achievements. Seems as though there could be more written about Vesalius Autopsy considering that was the thing he was most known for.