A fact from Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
In the first paragraph of the article, I recommend to the authors to explain "what" the commission is and "why" it was established. A reader who is unfamiliar with the topic of "animal magnetism" does not immediately understand what you are talking about.
The article deeply delves into the topic, but an historic reviewer is needed
Pass
(b) (focused)
In my opinion, the first part of the article is too broad and explores aspects that are not necessarily relevant. Furthermore, the core of the article (the commission description) is described after more than 4000 words. I suggest reducing the text in the first part to make the article more focused on the topic. The section "Four Vestiges of the Practice of Contact Magnetization" also seems superfluous or misplaced.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
this sentence is strong "These facts expose the error in the commonly expressed (in modern literature) and extremely misleading misrepresentation of affairs; namely, the assertion that the Commissions had agreed that, in each case, Mesmer had" cured "his patients:" "and probably need more references.
Don't know
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has left no comments here
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
the authors expanded and improved the page as requested. However, a historical peer review is suggested. But from a formal point of view the article is a good article.
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: I think the alternate DYK is more interesting than the original, and could serve to bring more people to read the article (which might fit the first objective of DYKs better). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 01:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The current preview image is that of the Template:Research sidebar. The subject seems very broad based on the TOC alone. But I think a collage with some of the artistic depictions, paintings of relevant scientists or the cover of the report could be better. --TwainNeverSaidThat 22:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism for issues which need to be addressed. Srobodao84 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't know
I think the alternate DYK is more interesting than the original, and could serve to bring more people to read the article (which might fit the first objective of DYKs better). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 01:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)