Talk:Andreas Vesalius

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andreas Vesalius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Belgium Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

History of Science High‑importance

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was reviewed by Nature (journal) on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 4 errors. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ruotolo1. Peer reviewers: Ruotolo1.

Above undated message substituted from

I seemed to get a bias sense from some of the wording used when referring to Galen’s work compared to Vesalius. It mentions in the medical career and accomplishment section that Galen assumed a lot of his work based on the assumptions from animals, and basically that Vesalius’ information trumps his. But I think Galen’s deserves a better perspective and view for his work to prevent bias. Also for paragraph 4 in the section of “Imperial physician and death”, they say “Some said”. But who is that pertaining too? That same information is sourced from a Dutch language reference which is hard to validate. A lot of information seems to not be cited. Mitch8335 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the scientific findings section there seem to be a lot of opinionated words. For instance it is written Vesalius' work in on the vascular and circulatory systems was his greatest achievement to modern medicine. I believe this could be a biased statement and that saying one of his greatest achievements would be more fair to the article. It seems as though a couple of facts are missing citations such as the ones at the end of other achievements. Seems as though there could be more written about Vesalius Autopsy considering that was the thing he was most known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added byMcaffrey9 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Mcaffrey9 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of editorializing in the "Scientific Findings" bit that needs revised. It currently sounds more like a eulogy and less like an encyclopedic article. Rigidbodyratking (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andreas Vesalius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716134128/http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/flash/vesalius/vesalius.html to http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/flash/vesalius/vesalius.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]