Wikipedia:Peer review/Bates method/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bates method

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it to WP:GA status (possibly FA but I doubt it would be a good candidate for that due to the subject.) It has been failed as GA a few times mainly because of tags at the top of the article, which are gone for now thanks to this discussion (which would be helpful to look at), but intermittent disputes persist.

Thanks, PSWG1920 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Fascinating article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Since the book was published in 1920, more free photos from it could be used. Ideally the article should have an article in the lead, per WP:MOS#Images. Is there a picture of Bates (I see there is in his article)? How about a photo of the cover of his book?
    • I have gone through the book (html version) repeatedly, and can't find any more images which would be helpful in the article. It seems to me that any other image from the book would require far too much explanation in order to reflect its original context, and wouldn't add much to the article even so. And unfortunately illustrations don't seem to have been included in the Better Eyesight magazines. Perhaps we could find something for the lead. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not looked at all of the images there - assumed there might be more that could be used here, but understand if there are not. The picture of Bates in his bio should be added here - it is a possible lead image. I personally like the File:BurningGlass.png as a lead image - it is of something no one would do today and seems to illustrate just how out of touch with current practice this method was. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that particular practice was certainly out of touch with current practice. One user tried hard to get this image removed for that reason, to the point of canvassing. I don't think it would be accepted in the lead. A photo of Bates would work, I guess. Or maybe of Huxley if we could find one that was applicable to this article and free. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have realized that there might possibly be a problem with proving that the photo of Bates is free, although I would guess that it is. See my comment at File_talk:William_Horatio_Bates.jpg. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just added a different photo of Bates and his assistant, which is verifiably public domain, to the lead of Bates method. I had hesitated to use it because the book doesn't actually say that that's Bates, but I think it's pretty clear that it is. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few places using italics for emphasis that seem not to follow WP:ITALIC - see for example "This is accomplished by action of the ciliary muscle, a muscle within the eye, ..." OR "In addition to their known function of turning the eye ..."
    • In those examples, italics are being used to contrast Bates' model with the mainstream one. WP:ITALIC indicates that it's sometimes okay to use italics for emphasis. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but most of Treatments and After Bates seems not be in the lead.
    • I added a paragraph, mainly about Huxley, to the lead to correspond with the "After Bates" section. As Huxley's case is probably the single most notable aspect of the subject, I'm surprised that neither I nor anyone else thought to do that before. As far as the correspondence to the "Treatments" section, I think "His techniques centered around visualization and movement" is an adequate summary (and there is the allusion to Sunning in the lead's final paragraph, regarding safety.) I don't see any need to list the individual techniques in the introduction. PSWG1920 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as "nothing important should be in the lead only", I'm not sure what you're referring to. The Gardner quote (also quoted by Pollack) is a good summation of the skeptics' viewpoint, discussed in more detail throughout the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I thought mentioning some of the treatments might be OK, but your call. Yes, I meant the Gardner quote - my preference is to repeat a quote like that in the article. Your mileage may vary ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see where in the article that quote would fit besides the introduction. "Wildly exaggerated case records" is one distinct point, "unwarranted inferences" is another, and "anatomical ignorance" is yet another. It does however neatly summarize the views of Gardner, Pollack, and others. When the article had a more encompassing "Criticisms" section, that quote headed it as I recall, but when most of the criticisms were integrated into the applicable sections, the quote was moved to the intro. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs should be in numerical order, so fix things like "... and to more serious eye conditions such as cataracts and glaucoma.[9][3]"
    • Is this stated anywhere? If that's part of a guideline, then it seems like there could and should be a bot to do that. Because reference numbers change all the time. However, in the case you cited above, 9 is a primary source and 3 is a secondary source, and I thought having the primary one first would be more logical. Not a big deal though. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know I have seen this somewhere, but am unable to find it now quickly. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE refs for quotations should come right at the end of the sentence with the quote.
  • Several paragraphs are short (one or two sentences) and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. The Eyeglasses section is also very short.
    • This is largely the result of trimming and condensing. The Eyeglasses section in particular used to be much longer, but was trimmed due to concerns regarding excessive quoting and poor sources. Perhaps that section should be expanded or merged, but other than that, I don't see where combining or expanding paragraphs would improve the flow of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several places without refs, such as The terms "shift" and "swing" are not used in this fashion outside of a Bates context. Bates provided no evidence of any correlation between visual acuity and eye movement beyond his own clinical experience, which is effectively anecdotal. that need refs.
    • I agree with you that that example constituted original thought, and I have removed it. It was kept to keep another editor happy, see here. In regards to there being "several places without refs", however, I don't see any more. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reread it and the only other place I saw that could use a cite is His therapies were based on these assumptions. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new lead image and think this should pass GAN relatively easily. I also think it is a potential FA with some work. The lead is better - if this were FAC I would argue for less detail on Huxley and more on the other "After Bates" sections, but it is your call. There is a template to add for Wikisource material that should be added to the bottom of the article (for his book and magazine). Will try to find it and add one as an example. Could the picture of Huxley be added to his section? Also why is it "Margaret Darst Corbett" but "The case of Huxley" (and not "Aldous Huxley" (sp?)). Good luck with GAN, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your last question, I think it's because Huxley is already notable apart from the subject, while Corbett isn't (I suppose her having her own article might be questionable, but we've already integrated as much from that as would neatly fit into the Bates method article.) I guess we could add the photo of Huxley to his section (assuming it's verifiably free), but I'm not sure I see a reason to, considering it's already in his own article, and doesn't relate specifically to what is discussed here. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this could in the forseeable future be FA depends, I think, on whether the FA criteria is more raw or proportional. What I mean by that is, does it in practice take into account limitations of the available sources? As has been previously discussed at Talk:Bates method, there seems to be a severe limitation of secondary sources regarding modern Bates method practice (which most certainly exists), and this significantly affects the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand Spansih well enough to figure out the license on File:Aldous Huxley.JPG - if it is clearly free, then it can be used in any relevant article. FAC is very picky as of late (which is a good thing) so that could well be a problem. I have added the article to my watchlist. Good luck with the GAN, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bates_method/archive1&oldid=1078817848"