Talk:Howard Atwood Kelly

student Review on the entry for Howard Atwood Kelly
Introductory paragraph: The introduction is extremely short and lacking. It leaves the reader unsatisfied in terms of who was Dr. Kelly and what exactly were his great accomplishments. I would include more information on his career and his character.

Career: This section is incomplete in terms of the different stages in his career life. It is unbalanced, as it has much more information on his time at Hopkins than anywhere else. I would recommend including more information on his time at McGill University, how did he get there and why did he leave? I would also revise the paragraph structure, as some sentences don't follow each other in a complete thought. Finally, I think his Personal Life should come before his Career, as it makes more sense to understand who he was a person first and then as a doctor.

(Amunizr1 (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

Recognition: This section gives good information about various forms of recognition that Howard Kelly received; however, it might be more helpful if his awards were in some sort of bullet point list or if the passage as a whole was more continuous. Also, it would be more informative to have links to certain things, such as the University of Pennsylvania, because there are already similar links present. In other instances, the links are distracting. It is not necessary to link to the general countries because the passage only refers to obstetrical and gynecological societies in those countries. It could include more details about these societies or other specific awards Kelly received. This entire section is also missing citations.

Personal Life: This section is missing more information about how Kelly became interested in gynecology and more about his early life. It would be interesting to include some of his children too if they were inspired by their father’s work or followed a similar path. The last section about Mencken could be expanded to explain how he was mentioned in Mencken’s writings and more about his relationship with Mencken. The mention of the books he wrote should be included in the bibliography section below. The citations seem adequate a reliable for this section.

Bibliography: This section includes some of his most famous works, but for someone who has published several hundred papers, the list could be more comprehensive. This section also lists that there are 300 articles, but upon looking at other sources the number varies by up to 200, so this should be verified. It would be more helpful each work had a link to a summary, critique, or the work itself so readers could learn more. This section also needs citations. It seems irrelevant to list that “the standard author abbreviation Kelly is used to indicate this individual as the author when citing a botanical name.”

References: Some of the links to the sources do not work. Also, why is there a link to the International Plant Names Index? If the last section of the bibliography is irrelevant then this source should be removed.KMFischer (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Content
Content being added to this article is not NPOV. Wikipedia articles need to provide accepted knowledge; they are not praising or cursing anybody. Please try writing with no adjectives and descriptive adverbs at all, and then go back and only add them only when needed. The content also looks like it has been copied from the book. Please be careful about that. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I undid reverts by user Jytdog, as instructor in the students' course I can vouch that their work has not been copied and was all properly cited. I appreciate the comment about the need for more neutral language, but I think that reverting the page back to a much earlier version was a poor and hasty decision and it would be better simply to leave a note, flag the page, or make the edits necessary. Physhist (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes please don't do that. Your place as instructor does not give you special "rights" in Wikipedia.  The content violated NPOV by a mile.  I will be getting the book and will check for COPYVIO myself, but stuff like the following is not acceptable content in WIkipedia:
 * "His family had a proud history of achievement in politics (his father's great grandfather, Michael Hillegas, was the first Treasurer of the United States), business, real estate and civil service, and Howard Kelly was the first with achievement in medicine or science. "


 * Stuff like these odd literary turns of phrase are very COPYVIO-ish as well as just weird for an encycylopedia article:
 * "In Civil War times, when his father was at the war-front serving as a lieutenant in the 118th Pennsylvania Volunteers, the young Howard Kelly spent his free time roaming the hills with her mother in Chester (15 miles southwest of Philadelphia)"
 * "On his 75th birthday, he could well recall: "the first snake seen-how vividly it comes back; the 'bumble bees' building their homes in the big gatepost of a 24-acre field; the woods and the streams"
 * "In Penn's Medical School, he was deeply interested in anatomy and in 1882 he graduated with the Anomaly Prize from the Demonstrator of Morbid Anatomy."
 * " He later moved the little Hospital to Norris Square. Assisted by a group of Philadelphia philanthropist women, he was able to afford an operation room. This little hospital later became the Kensington Hospital for Women"


 * As I noted if the language were simplified and written simply this would probably be acceptable both with regard to NPOV and would ensure nothing was copied too closely. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your objections are noted, but again, these are concerns which would call for comments, flags, or edits yourself. As the instructor I am not claiming special administration privileges but rather knowledge of the your concerns wrt COPYVIO which I think are unfounded. You've thrown out a lot of good work along with a little bad without actually fixing it or helping others to do so. Physhist (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also be very careful with regard to neutrality; this is a Hopkins course, and this person is one of the Big 4 of Hopkins. We have a useful essay about problems that arise in this regard; please see WP:BOOSTER and of course WP:COI.   Kelly is indeed very important in the history of medicine and a neutral, well-sourced article about him is valuable. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The work is not "thrown out" - it is there in the history and can easily be pulled out, copied into a sandbox, and worked over to be acceptable.  I am not your TA; I do hope you work with the student to improve the content so it can be restored. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am indeed working with the students in question, and as I said before I appreciate your input. I simply caution you that in future a tag would be a better course of action than a large revert as there was much that was valuable even if it needed rewording. There is a fine tag for just this circumstance: Template:POV Physhist (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * While tagging is an acceptable option for POV problems, so is reversion. When someone reverts an addition, there's an obligation to discuss the issue and reach consensus. The onus is on the person reinserting the content. When potential copyright issues are identified, the material should not be left in the article. Re-inserting potential copyvios is a pretty serious issue. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Objections noted, I'm working with the students to resolve the isses.Physhist (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
Source: "After a Paris honeymoon they settled in Baltimore and raised nine children in the same religious tradition that Kelly was raised. Only his youngest son, Edmund Kelly, followed his footsteps into medicine."

Student edit: "After their honeymoon in Paris, the married couple decided to live in Baltimore, where they raised nine children together, and as a devout follower of the Episcopal faith, Kelly brought up his children in accordance with the same faith that he had. Additionally, out of nine children, only one, Edmund Kelly, studied medicine, despite their father's devoted career in the medical field."

I am not to take more time and crawl through to find more. Most places where there is colorful language there is very likely too-close paraphrasing or straightup copyvio. We see this all the time. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC).

new edits
Please work on specific sections instead of massive reverts. The citations are individually put in. Weird formatting is a result of separate members of a group working on the same wiki page. The underlined portion is intended for the other group member to see where citations are needed. The close-paraphrasing are fixed by including more sources and rewriting the parts you have pointed out, please stop massive reverts. Opinions regarding references coming only from JHU(JHMI) websites are fixed by references to the NIH journals. Note also that the quotes came from Howard Kelly's book and his work is already in the public domain. Lpeng18 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you actually look at what the two of you did? Please look at this.  What is up with all the underlining, incorrect citations, and unsourced content?  This is not OK in a live WIkipedia article - please do not use live Wikipedia as draft space.  Please perfect the content in your sandbox and have it checked by someone before you bring it into WP. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, the plan was for us to change consecutively within an hour. Your revert actually prevented her from adding the citations(her action was denied due to your revert), but advice taken, will be doing it in my sandbox, then move to the main page. Lpeng18 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And please do have it reviewed by someone (perhaps your class liaison) before moving to mainspace. Would save possible friction which I actually have no desire for. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it will be reviewed by our professor before we move the article into the main page next time. Please do come back and make further suggestions. The citations are tedious to add in but we do appreciate if you can post suggestions on the talk page and we will deal with it as soon as possible. Thank you. Lpeng18 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Lpeng18 I agree that citations are tedious if you do them manually. I don't know if you are using VisualEditor or the wikitext editor, but there is an automated way to citations in either of them. See here: User:Jytdog/How. The wikitext editor actually has more options than the VisualEditor does.  But it takes like 10 seconds. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User:JytdogThe final version is profread, reviewed by the Professor, edited again, and put on the page. Please help us to improve this article, and we will really appreciate your help. Lpeng18 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Super busy w RW stuff but will review probably tonight.  At least it ~looks~ OK with no weird formatting and normal citations. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)