Talk:Visible Human Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Copyright status[edit]

  • Does anyone know the Copyright status of this project? According to Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government work prepared by U.S. government employees is public domain. Yet this National_Library_of_Medicine project seems to be in the opinion of the project's directors Copyrighted (I hypothesize), since they ask for licensing and fees for its use. (Indeed it is a cash cow). I tried emailing the project contact address for clarification on whether they consider it public domain or Copyrighted but they did not respond. - Connelly (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


Anyone know the copyright status of the animated GIF ? -- (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to Similar Projects[edit]

There are many similar projects (whole human, but also parts) going on. Are there any pages on wikipedia which could be cited in a last paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


He does have a second testicle, it's just not descended. So one testicle sits in the scrotum, the other higher up at the site where the gonads develop. (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


I think this page is a great intro as to what the Virtual Human Project is. My first suggestion would be to add some recent information. There could mention of what scientists have been able to do with the bodies and what they have found out in recent years. Secondly I think it would be very helpful to incorporate some recent articles, as there have been more studies with the cadavers. I think the website for the U.S. National Library of Medicine, has could be very helpful. I found this article that I think has a lot of great detail in it Lastly I think in the data section there may be too much information in regards to “cut” and slice” which may be a bit distracting from the topic. Kingsb23 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Article[edit]

1) An external link to the website from the people that conducted the Visible Human Project has been included, however there are no quotes or evidence from the source itself included in the page. I think it is important to include information form the direct source.

2) Under the “Data” section, it seems confusing trying to explain the words “cut” and “slice” into great detail. You could just say that those words are misleading and then explain how the cross-sectional photographs are actually taken.

3) Only cross-sectional pictures of the male are shown. Include same cross-sectional photos of a female to show comparison.

4) For the “Problems with the data sets” section, where does this information come from? Will be helpful if a citation and link (if applicable) is included.

Abdowns (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for this Article[edit]

This page is an excellent source for what the Visible Human Project is. However, there is always room for improvement! In the data section, the discussion about the misnomers "cut" and "slice" was a bit too detailed and I felt it took away from the main topic of the page as a whole. A much simpler explanation of why the words are both known to be wrong would have been sufficient, and then would provide more room for explanation as to how the photographs are actually taken using the appropriate words. Next, it would be beneficial to add more recent information and articles about the use of cadavers and if the process has changed at all. Adding more information about the female cadaver would be interesting as well. Lastly, for both the data and problems with data sets sections, where did this information come from? A reliable source included would be helpful. Did the problems with data sets alter the results at all? This viewpoint was underrepresented. Weedaaly (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)weedaaly