Apothecaries' system edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just assessed it as A-class for WP:MEASURE and I would like feedback as to whether the article fits the normal A-class requirements of completeness and style. I think it does, obviously, but I would like some more eyes on the article to make sure.
Thanks, Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Peer review notified at the following WikiProjects:Physics; Chemistry; Pharmacology; History of science; Medicine; Science. Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Cite formatting remark: The article has several doubled edition abbreviations in "Notes and references" due to minor misuse of the cite book template. The template automatically adds a .ed to the end of the text placed in the edition field. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I have fixed this and a few similar problems now. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Hornoir I won't even pretend to understand this article, but…
- In the lead, the sentence…
"In this exact form the system was in use in the United Kingdom, and also in its former colonies well into the 20th century."
…is confusing. If I understand it properly, the following would be a more direct manner to express the information:
"This exact form of the system was in use in the United Kingdom, and its former colonies, well into the 20th Century." - The end of "For a long time, medical recipes were written in Latin, often using special symbols to denote weights and measures, or even substances." is awkward. Perhaps: "often using unique symbols to denote weights, measures, or substances."
- "The use of different measure and weight systems for different purposes…" to "The use of different measure and weight systems for various purposes…"
Sadly, this is as far as I can get. This article is far too densely written for the common reader, I'm afraid. Which, to me, is a problem with it. While I am typically not a fan of saying this, I believe it need to be "dumbed down" a bit. hornoir (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I changed the sentences you mentioned, with some modifications (the system was abolished in the UK before the 20th century, and it seems better to drop the substances red herring altogether).
- If you have specific suggestions for "dumbing down" I would be interested to hear them. Here is what I had in mind when writing the article in its present form: I expect that most readers will come from the background of the English systems, since only these survived long enough so that some people can still remember using them. I hope that most of these readers will be happy just with the table in the lede and the sections on apothecaries' measure and medical recipes. If these sections are also too densely written, then I agree there is something wrong with the article. The rest of the article basically says that internationally the situation was immensely complicated, and gives the historical development. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by llywrch
Well, I didn't find this article hard to follow. Maybe that's just because I tend to read arid & densely-written books, but there are many articles on mathematical & philosophical topics which cause my eyes to glaze over within the first or second paragraph, so maybe there's another reason Hornoir couldn't get into it. (And no, this is not meant to disparage Hornoir's intelligence or attention level.)
Another reason I liked this was that this article linked to a number of articles I never suspected existed. For example, Schola Medica Salernitana, which while still needing work is a fascinating topic.
One problem I noticed is that articles are linked to many times here. Although links in different sections can be defended -- & are often reasons to ignore the rule -- the ones that most bothered me were multiple times in the same section, often closer than a couple of paragraphs apart.
Another problem is that otherwise fascinating map showing the variations in the weight of an apothecaries' ounce. For one thing, it would make the illustration more useful if the values were tied to a city or country by name. Another (& perhaps more fixable) is that although the explanation for the map states that there were three different methods, which could be located in different parts of Europe, for determining the value of an apothecaries' ounce, I didn't easily find a section in the article that explained what these methods were. I think in one section two of them are mentioned -- the German & the French -- but what of the Southern Italian?
Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)