Talk:Boston Society for Medical Improvement

Mumford source
Is there any reason why we are citing various editions of the Mumford source and why we are using at least two different styles of citation for it? Were there changes made in the reprinted versions of the original journal article? - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * because one (that cited in the bibliography) is a PDF version of the book, whereas the other two are records of its publication with bibliographic information. If you object, those two could be replaced with the primary source, something like  .  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article fails WP:CITEVAR, I think. It is certainly confusing. The PDF claims to be a 1901 reprint of the journal article that first appeared in March of that year; elsewhere we link directly to the (subscription-only) doi but doesn't note that it is subscription-only. You've also used the doi both as a parameter and as the url, which is redundant.


 * Which of the two variants did you actually read? The paywalled version or the reprint? I suspect the latter. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * since you find the current version confusing, I have simplified the citations. And yes, I read the reprint.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. If you read the reprint then that is what we should cite: it is not unknown for reprints to differ from originals, which is perhaps one reason why the |edition parameter is available in some citation templates. The article remains inconsistent per CITEVAR: it uses different styles of citation, which is generally deprecated. I could fix this but I don't know which way you prefer to take it, ie: all in some sort of Harvard format (eg: sfn) or all using the templates, or something else. I can't remember if this would amount to a straight GA fail but it certainly should do. I'm not sure if the reviewer(s) picked up on it but there was a very odd comment relating to something else above along the lines of "we can pass it then fix it". Perhaps there are WikiCup gremlins here (people involved in that sometimes rush things to rack up points) but, whatever it may be, it would be good if we can reach some sort of agreement and straighten it out. I occasionally stray into medical history territory myself and I found this to be an interesting read. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * forgive me if I'm being stupid, but I don't see how it fails CITEVAR. The citation style is simple: I use one (inline) reference where only one page of the work is referenced, and where more than one page is referenced, the source goes in the "Bibliography" section and I cite individual pages in sfn-like style.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)  (If you're referring to the "Constitution and by-laws" source, I would cite it in the style of the Mumford and Jackson sources, but I can't as it doesn't have an author.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC))
 * So, effectively, you have three styles: one for single-page, one for multiple page with author present and one for multiple page with no author. That isn't consistent in my eyes, it's confusing and unnecessary. But, hey, there is no accounting for taste ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm open to suggestions. It does bug me that I can't find an easier way to cite the latter, but I really can't think of one.  Of course, it probably wouldn't be too hard to dispose of the "Bibliography" section and cite them all inline using rp.  What do you think?  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FTR, the Good article criteria says nothing about consistency of citations, and it requires only that the material in the article be verifiable. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to not requiring citation consistency, note 1 says: "Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria; at the time of assessment, they may or may not meet featured article criteria", and note 2 says: "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles." [original emphasis] Rationalobserver (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Boston Society for Medical Improvement. 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/20141017135355/http://elane.stanford.edu:80/wilson/html/chap5/chap5-sect2.html to http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap5/chap5-sect2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boston Society for Medical Improvement. 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/20140924041930/http://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/exhibits/show/the-scalpel-and-the-pen/the-scalpel/puerperal-fever to http://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/exhibits/show/the-scalpel-and-the-pen/the-scalpel/puerperal-fever
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006102728/http://www2.massgeneral.org/history/catalogueDetails.asp?catalogueNo=82 to http://www2.massgeneral.org/history/catalogueDetails.asp?catalogueNo=82
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap5/chap5-sect2.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)