Talk:Andreas Vesalius

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Why has no one actually made this page detailed and concise? If William Harvey or Ambroise Pare can have a lengthy acticle, then why does Vesalius have a very small paragraph? I think that he should have a longer paragraph describing his works. anon

Few Suggestions

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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)