Talk:William Smellie (obstetrician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

check it out[edit]

You may want to review the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine article that claims Smellie and Hunter contracted out murders of pregnant women to gain specimes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/07/british-obstetrics-founders-murders-claim For $20 you can get access to the JRSM article http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/103/2/46 4.249.63.80 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I was about to post as follows:
In today's BBC Radio 4Today Programme the author of a recent paper[1] claimed that the obstetricians Smellie and Hunter are the anatomists depicted in Hogarth's The rewards of cruelty - and that they had many pregnant women murdered in order to acquire the cadavers they needed for their anatomical studies.
1. Shelton DC. The Emperor's new clothes. J R Soc Med 2010;103(2):46-50.
--peter_english (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing This Article[edit]

Hello! I am thinking of editing this article by discussing more about William Smellie's relation to other scientists of the time such as Carlos Linnaeus and his views and knowledge of botany in medicine. I would also like to discuss his magnus opus The Philosophy of Natural History. Any feedback would be much appreciated! Thank you. Scarycheerio123 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Scarycheerio123

Plans to Edit this page[edit]

Helllo! My name is KP and I am part of the History of Modern Medicine class working to edit some historical medical topics by adding new analysis and information from varying sources. I plan on talking more about William Smellie's work with corpses and the stigma against their work. Any feedback would be great! Thanks! - Scarycheerio123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarycheerio123 (talkcontribs) 04:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! This is BaiCaiXue. I would like to add more on Smellie's pioneering role as a male in the field of obstetrics and his contributions to the field (including teaching, improved forceps/procedures for using them, and the anatomy of pregnancy/labor). BaiCaiXue (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

I will start writing about the murder controversies that William Smellie is accused of with John Hunter. BaiCaiXue would you like to talk about his collaborations with other scientists and his famous books he wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarycheerio123 (talkcontribs) 04:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi KP, I was going to write about his contributions to obstetrics like I stated before and if he collaborated with others to make these advancements I'll mention them. Is that alright or did you want a section specifically talking about his work with other scientists? Also, I can write about his books. I was thinking The Philosophy of Natural History", "A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Midwifery", and "A Sett of Anatomical Tables, with Explanations, and an Abridgement, of the Practice of Midwifery. BaiCaiXue (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

BCX- I would also like to add an infobox to this pageBaiCaiXue (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Smellie (obstetrician)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


I propose to review this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that this article formed part of an educational project and that the nominator has not edited for the past three months, so giving him/her a ping in case he/she looks in! @BaiCaiXue: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

First reading[edit]

  • The lead is rather short. It should consist of two or three paragraphs summarising the main body of text.
  • You need to define or explain "uterine dystocia".
  • You need to wikilink or explain "OBGYN".
  • There are other technical terms that would benefit from wikilinking.
  • You need a citation at the end of paragraph 3 of the "Life" section.
  • The section "Controversy" is somewhat confusing and does not seem to be structured in a very logical way.
  • Reference 7 (Encyclopedia Britannica) is not correct.
In general, this article is well written and is not far from meeting the GA criteria. I will put it on hold for a week and if no action is taken during that time, I will try and bring it up to GA standard myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article. I am sorry to say that it is hard for me to find time to edit the article and I was wondering if I could have it removed from a GA nomination. Thanks again and deepest apologies for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaiCaiXue (talkcontribs) 08:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The nominator wished this nomination to be withdrawn, but the only procedure available is failing it. It does not fully meet the GA criteria because the lead is too short and the article is insufficiently referenced. If improvements are made, it can be renominated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)