Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2

Homeopathy[edit]

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 it is a thoroughly sourced good article, and with editing, stylistic improvements, and perhaps removal of some excessively long sections to daughter articles, it could become a featured article.

Note: the article was recently subject to intense edit warring, but this seems to be under control. I would like suggestions on how to improve the article so that former adversaries can work together towards a common goal.

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The lead and the first section are fine~~, Oh well, what a difference less than a sennight makes. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be improved "...one should administer a minute dose of a substance that in crude dose...", Jim62sch^dissera! 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using nth century, a little more date specificity might be nice. Jim62sch^dissera! 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US homeopathy still exists, yes? " This trend became especially exemplified by James Tyler Kent and dominated US homeopathy from the 1850s until its demise in the 1940s." Jim62sch^dissera! 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could be better phrased. It seems to be a ref to broad-spectrum treatments, is it? On the other hand, "clinical" homeopathy uses a range of approaches including combinations of remedies to "cover" the various symptoms of an illness, similar to conventional drug treatments Jim62sch^dissera! 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crappy English: ...where the patient's subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the patient expecting that it will work

This section ===Contemporary prevalence=== is poorest some I English read ever have. Jim62sch^dissera! 07:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copied in the results of the script below:

Please do not copy the semi automated review here - this is stated in the directions above, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Radames[edit]

The current article is a polemic against Homeopathy: it s not neutral.

1.” Claims for its efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies” This is not a neutral statement. Most of the studies I read in the article don’t support the sentence. They concluded that the results are positive but not convicning. 2. The only study which” debunked “ homeopathy has caused a major controversy (major press .articles, debates - I saw one at the museum of the natural history ) and important homeopaths have critisized it in reliable sources : where is this critisism ? 3.Homeopathy according to the editors of the article is not regarded ………controversial anymore; despite all the reliable sources which state the opposite. 4.The article is unstable since December . : Totally unbalanced and biased.--Radames1 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth doesn't have to respect your notion of "balance". Also, see WP:UNDUE, and maybe read a bit about science 195.141.76.131 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

Please do not add level 1-3 section headings to peer reviews. If this happens too often, we may have to reconsider transcluding peer reviews onto the main peer review page. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When everyone is done mucking about ;) the grammar of the article will need to be corrected -- assuming it isn't in the interim. However, the present course doesn't seem to offer much hope. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]