Talk:Homeopathy/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Berchanhimez (talk · contribs) 13:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'll start by saying it's nice to see the editor who delisted the article from GA a "few" years ago, and who recently failed it again due to lack of repsonse from the nominator working to bring it back up to GA status - I agree completely with the 2012 decision to delist, which I reviewed to help decide if I'm comfortable taking this on. It will take me at least a day to go through all the prose, which I will be doing offline and will only post here when I am complete with the whole article (although it may come in chunks so I don't lose the edit if something glitches), and I'll likely start with criteria 2-6 first as I find they help me get very acquainted with the article so that the prose review can be more complete. I've spent about 20-30 minutes doing a cursory review of the article and the criticisms provided in the failed review, as well as the 2012 delisting, and I think the article has a shot at being able to be listed again (i.e. isn't a quick fail). Many of my comments are likely to be nitpicking, and I am happy to work with the nominator regarding any disagreements as to whether a change is required to make it meet the good article criteria. I will return later to complete criteria 2-6, and expect to be able to have the full review completed NLT Monday morning or so, if it even takes me that long (will heavily be based on my workload at work). If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask or bring them up to me. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for starting this Berchanhimez. Take the time you need. As you are probably aware it is a controversial topic area here on Wikipedia so there may be some things that I can't change without wider consensus (cites in the lead is a recent one). Happy to work with you and answer any questions you have. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, and I understand that completely regarding prior consensus - I've looked through the past discussions I can find to try to comply with past consensuses, but if I make suggestions that are against some consensus I missed please feel free to simply tell me so and I won't hold it against the review. I've read through the article completely a couple times now with an eye towards the "grand" criteria (as opposed to "petit" criteria like grammar/etc) and will hopefully complete my third readthrough specifically for prose quality, spelling, grammar, etc either later today or tomorrow at the latest. I've also during these first two readthroughs been doing a random spot check of sources - that they verify the material they purport to, etc - and so will post that review now as well. My next step over the next few days is going to be to critically read every word of the article, now that I understand the flow/organization/etc - for the grammar, prose, and direct in-line citation of sentences with quotes/contentious material/etc. Also see further commment at the bottom under "comments". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I hope to work through this in the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to take the time you need. I will post on your talk page or ping if I feel progress has stalled. On another note, given that this is a contentious subject, I am happy to ask for a second opinion to ensure we are not missing anything - but I am also fine with completing the review myself. If you would like me to ask for a second opinion just let me know. Please give me a ping when you're done with edits or comments on my suggestions/concerns. Thank you Aircorn :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See below in collapsed section(s)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I believe that the Explanations of perceived effects section could be "proseified" and would be better that way, but I am open to disagreement on this.

   The article needs a pass for compliance with summary style - there are multiple sections which have primary articles yet go into very deep detail here - those need to be pared back. it's fine after discussion.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   I'm marking this as done, but I am going to trust User:Aircorn to take time to fix the few duplicated ref-names and/or other CS1 errors that are present in the article.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   For James Tyler Kent's 1905 Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica, 217 preparations underwent provings and newer substances are continually added to contemporary versions. This sentence, since it references the specific book, should have an inline citation for it.

   I am happy with the citations in the article and did not find any contentious/quoted material that is not cited appropriately. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   A spot check of approximately 50 citations I could access over two different read throughs (I ensured I didn't duplicate the same citation twice) shows that the material is supported by the citations it's attributed to.

   Aside from this, I believe that the Explanations of perceived effects should be rewritten as prose instead of as a list - it's currently unclear to the quick reader that the entire list is sourced to [19]:155–167.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig tool finds no copyvio, but there are a few smaller issues which must be taken care of before I can feel comfortable passing this criterion.

Done

In 2016 the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an "Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Marketing Claims for Over-the-Counter Homeopathic Drugs" which specified that the FTC will hold efficacy and safety claims for over-the-counter homeopathic drugs to the same standard as other products making similar claims. - the bolded part is taken from here In 2015, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia concluded that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective and should not be used to treat health conditions that are "chronic, serious, or could become serious". This quote should be expanded to begin at the word "no" - as the entire sentence from "no reliable.. become serious." is from that source as well. A 2016 review of peer-reviewed articles from 1981 to 2014 by scientists from the University of Kassel, Germany, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathy in livestock as a way to prevent or treat infectious diseases. The bolded part is too closely paraphrased for comfort - seemingly only changing the word "food producing animals" to "livestock" but otherwise being a direct copy. The laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number, is roughly equal to homeopathic dilutions of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024). is a copyvio from this site, and I can't tell for sure that it is or is not a "reverse copyvio" but it seems unlikely - as the text doesn't seem written in encyclopedic style to begin with. I recommend simply rewording it to avoid any potential issue. Other things that Earwig's detector finds are either already in quotation marks, or are the type of "short phrase" or single word(s) that would not fall under copyright protection as there's no "uniqueness" in them to copyright (ex: names of organizations spelled out, etc). Placing this section on hold until the above issues are dealt with.

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I think this article is organized marvelously well. As it is a pseudoscience, it makes complete sense to put history above the actual practicing of the "science", but that then comes as the next main section (preparations) for those readers who are looking for such information. The evidence (for/against, primarily the second per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE), the efficacy, and the regulations/legislation around the topic are all discussed later on.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Done

The homeopathic dilutions section has a separate, main article already - meaning this article should present that information in summary style. As of now, the Homeopathy article here greatly duplicates (but not completely) the coverage of content in Homeopathic dilutions. I think this section needs pared back to at most simple paragraph or two, with the "see also" or "main article" hatnote at the top of the section to comply with the summary style guidelines. The efficacy section should be pared down at least some - it has its own article, but I think summary style allows for some subsectioning here. I recommend no more than two paragraphs for Lack of scientific evidence and Plausibility of dilutions, then three paragraphs for Efficacy, one or two paragraphs combined for Explanations of perceived effects and Purported effects in other biological systems, and then finally two to maybe three paragraphs for Ethics and safety. My recommendations on paragraph length are simply my opinion - but I do think this section needs pared back to be summary style. Some things to keep in mind: specific details are for the "main article" - this includes specific organizational positions etc - unless they are so relevant they must be in this article. Similarly, the Regulation subsection can likely be pared back to a two-three paragraph summary of it - specific examples of regulation are likely not appropriate, and should just be generalized to a comparison of the form "In many countries it is [completely outlawed/regulated/etc] (such as country a, b, c) while in others..." - or similar. The following Prevalence section needs to be cut back as well - maybe one paragraph. Note that this is purely an issue because of the existence of two other articles (evidence and prevalence) - which now makes this an "overview" article which must follow summary only style for those sections for which there's separate articles already.

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I see no problems with the current article with bias or due weight. As the four (necessary) cites in the first sentence confirm, homeopathic medicine is not medicine and is a fringe pseudoscience - thus "due" weight is to give almost all weight with very limited exceptions to the sources and content which discusses it as a pseudoscience. I did not see any overtly biased or even covertly biased statements in my read through, nor did I see anything masquerading as neutral which was really trying to push a viewpoint. However, I am putting this on hold because of the issues I identified above - there certainly could be some bias issues after the article is pared back to comply with summary style, so I will re-review this once the summary-style is fixed.

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   I see no active edit wars or any current major content disputes - it is worth remembering that articles like this will always have a large edit rate simply because many people are interested in the topic. The last 500 edits do not show any large scale edit wars or anything concerning on this front. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Unfortunately, no ultimate source is given for File:Hahnemann.jpg - making the copyright status unverifiable that I can see. I am hoping I'm just missing something, and I would be willing to consider passing over this one image given it's survived 15 years on commons undeleted, but I do believe that the letter of the GA requirements would require this to be rectified, if not the spirit as well.

   There is a source given for File:Mortar2.jpg, but I doubt it would pass muster on commons as it is now, as the user who uploaded it claims they do not remember anything about the date it was taken and there is no metadata information to potentially verify that... but this should be easy to rectify by replacing with another picture of a mortar and pestle if you wouldn't mind.

   Both replaced/removed so no problems.

   No other image licensing issues found - all are purportedly free so there are no fair use rationales to evaluate.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The image of the oscillococcinum pills is very generic - there does not appear to be any distinguishing feature of them versus any other small white pills - thus I'm not sure what benefit including the image has. It also doesn't appear to be relevant to the section it's placed in at a minimum - while it's "200C" pills, that isn't related to the appearance of the pill - or this isn't specified in the prose at least. Aside from that, all images look to be relevant, and I will still be working on the remainder of the review, but I do believe this image should be reconsidered before pass/fail determination is made.

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, this article can certainly be a good article, but it will need a decent chunk of work here. I am not comfortable passing it in its current state given primarily the summary style violations, but I am happy to leave it on hold and even extend the hold time if you are able to actively work on paring it back for the two sections I point out. Please feel free to ask me any questions you have on my review, and to ping me as you take care of issues so I can re-review and start turning some of these purple bubbles to green check marks for you. I will also, as I mention below, be reviewing the prose of the two "summary sections" (i.e. preparations and evidence/efficacy) after they are pared back in line with summary style. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

First prose review

Extended content

Homeopathy: Consider whether the four sources at the beginning may be better combined as one – while I understand the need to cite it profusely, they could be cited in one <ref> tag that says something like: “The following sources consider homeopathy a pseudoscience[1][2][3][4]”. Considering the response at the talk page I would rather not do too much with the cites here and let sleeping dogs lie. AIRcorn (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC) I wonder if there is a better word than “created by” – maybe “It was first practiced by… in 1796” Might go with conceived. He kind of came up with the whole thing so practiced doesn't really sound right either. AIRcorn (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC) “is repeatedly and thoroughly diluted” is awkward, the word thoroughly specifically. Rewrote and combined similar paragraphs The final product is chemically indistinguishable from the diluent, which is usually either distilled water, ethanol or sugar; often, not even a single molecule of the original substance can be expected to remain in the product. -> Often not a single molecule of the original substance can be expected in any amount of the final product. This makes it chemically indistinguishable from the diluent… Rewrote in when doing the above fix “Between the dilution iterations” -> Between each dilution… then “practice” to “may” and change verbs appropriately. Done NHS sentence consider moving cites to the end – I’m not sure it’s ‘’that’’ necessary to cite mid-sentence there. History: Done I’m not sure the first section header is really necessary (Historical context) – I think it could be the “lead for the subsections” below as it is (i.e. with no subheader) Agree. Good idea. The concept section is exceptionally well written. Thanks, although much of it is not my doing. In “Provings”, I think that the sentence about the dilutions and their technique would be best split into two separate sentences. Done and some other copy editing while I was at it “some replacing one or more of psora's proposed functions, including tuberculosis and cancer miasms” – recommend a reword to “some of which replaced illnesses previously attributed to the psora, including…” Replaced with "some replacing illnesses previously attributed to the psora, including" “the first US national medical association, the American Institute of Homeopathy, was established.” I don’t think we can call it a “medical association” – it’s misleading imo given that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. I recommend something like “the first US organization consisting of homeopaths” or “the first organization in the US for practitioners of homeopathy” or similar – avoiding the word medical altogether. Just removed US national medical association altogether. US was redundant anyway “patients of homeopaths often had better outcomes than those of the doctors.” – recommend clarifying that “doctors” refers to “doctors of medicine” or in some other way clarify which doctors these are (I know, but the average reader may not on a quick read). Changed to "medical practitioners" “would almost surely cause no harm” – “rarely caused harm” – also change “killed” to “harmed” later in this sentence. Yeah thats not a great way to say that. Went with "Though ineffective, homeopathic preparations would rarely be detrimental, thus users are less likely to be harmed by the treatment that is supposed to be helping them' in the end “From its inception, however, homeopathy was criticized by mainstream science.” – this could be better worded as “Even during its rise in popularity, homeopathy was criticized by those in mainstream science” or similar. i like your wording, altered it a little The sentence beginning “Sir John Forbes” either needs a connecting word or the comma needs otherwise fixed – as it stands, it’s ungrammatical but my coffee hasn’t kicked in quite enough for me to remember the actual term. replaced with an "and" “there were only 75 pure homeopaths practising in the U.S” – I think it would be clearer to say something along the lines of “solely homeopathic practitioners” or similar. Agree “give credit for the revival to” – “credit the revival to” then “performed” to “conducted” Better End of the first paragraph of 21st century should be a period, not a comma. Oops “They also conducted a survey that found once consumers were informed about the lack of scientific evidence for the efficacy of the homeopathic remedies sold by Walmart and CVS they felt ripped off and deceived.” – reword this as “They also conducted a survey in which they found consumers felt ripped off when informed of the lack of evidence for the use of homeopathic remedies, such as those sold by Walmart and CVS”. Preparations and Treatment I don't think I should replace efficacy with use. They are two very different things. Changed the rest. The “lead” paragraph of this section is very well written Thanks In “Consultation”, recommend splitting the first sentence after “where the patient describes their medical history”, the next sentence being “The patient will describe the “modalities” – or whether the symptoms change with the weather or other factors”. Okay done. This would also be a good place to mention that this is also a common theme in western medicine too – symptoms changing with the weather/activities – but I understand it’s likely to find a good source for that comparison. had a quick ook for some sources, but didn't really find anything suitable The next sentence “They also take information” – I’d either say “solicit information” or “record information”. went with solicit The next sentence should have a better transition – recommend “The totality of the information obtained (also called the “symptom picture”) is matched…” – then “specify certain homeopathic remedies” could be changed to “determine the appropriate…” Done I think the “Preparation” subsection can likely be shortened substantially per WP:SS (summary style) – this also goes for the “Dilutions” subsection – both have primary articles on them and so there is no need for so much detail in this article. I will defer an in-depth prose review on those until shortening is considered/completed. Will come back to this At the beginning of the “Provings” subsection, change “say” to “claim”. Okay done Evidence and efficacy This section has a primary article, and I think unfortunately it’s quite too long given that it has a primary article. I believe that each subsection can be cut down to one, maybe two paragraphs, and I will defer prose review of this section until that is considered and done. Will come back to this too Regulation and prevalence I would recommend cutting this back as well – entire paragraphs for each country are unnecessary in this article, given that there is a primary article they can go in. I think a paragraph for the EU/UK, a paragraph for the US/Canada, and a paragraph for the rest of the world (three total) should be fine for the regulation section – with perhaps a short paragraph at the beginning or end to summarize/overall. And this The prevalence section as well could be condensed into one, maybe two paragraphs. And this one Veterinary use Very well written, and I have no problems with this section.

Neutrality/MOS review

Preface: This is and will always be a very controversial/contentious article, and especially so for the lead section. For this reason, I am going to be very stringent in my review, and attempt to point out things that may have the air of non-neutrality, so that they can be evaluated and discussed. As with the prose review, I am more than happy to work with you and discuss if you disagree with anything I bring up, and we can work together to come to a decision. There may also be some prose review things pointed out here, but I believe most of that has been taken care of so I'm trying to focus solely on neutrality/MOS now.

Neutrality/MOS

"chosen substance" in the lead may be slightly puffy - it has a slight implication that it's "the chosen one" or similar - I think the sentence can stand without the word chosen. went with "selected" as I think we need to clarify that it is not just any substance. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "violently shake" - potentially a slight negative connotation here that's unintentional - again, I think it could stand without the word violently. Changed AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "Clinical trials have been conducted, and generally demonstrated no objective effect from homeopathic preparations." comma unnecessary Good spot AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "quackery and nonsense" - I understand both of these are sourced, but I feel there's likely a better word than "nonsense". To me, nonsense means "incoherent babbling" - which they aren't. Many "professionals" who practice this (in quotes for obvious reasons) make complete sense and are very coherent and intelligent - hence how they're able to convince people to take sugar pills based on these claims. I recommend changing "nonsense" to "fraud" or "fraudulent", which is also supported by the three sources, but avoids the personal attack present in "nonsense". I will try this. Will see if it sticks. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "apparent success" - was it only apparent, or did it actually succeed? I suggest a reword of this sentence to clarify what kind of success - I believe you mean commercial here, so you could simply say "commercial success" instead. Actually its more because doing nothing was better than many of the conventional treatments of the time. I feel apparent is the best way to say this as it appeared to work. Could use supposed or superficial if this makes it clearer, but I prefer apparent. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "As a result national and international bodies" - needs a comma after the transition phrase, and at the end of the sentence recommend making it clearer that they withdrew funding "for homeopathic visits and treatments". Could also consider clarifying where funding was withdrawn from - was it from research grants, from national health systems, etc (I think I know, but again thinking of the lay reader here) Done the comma. Its an introductory sentence covering a lot of different bodies, but all relate to healthcare. Added. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "has ceased funding" -> "no longer provides funding" - slightly clearer and "ceased" may carry a slight negative/legalese connotation (ex: "cease and desist") Done AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "blacklist of forbidden prescription items" - this is redundant and overly negative - recommend removing "blacklist of" and just calling it the "list of forbidden prescription items". Okay AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) While I understand the El Pais article uses the headline "ban", I think it's more accurate and neutral to say "limit" as they aren't looking to outright ban its practice, just place limits on things such as name, claims made, etc. Clarified that it is in health centers. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC) End of lead section "longest" -> "oldest known" or something - longest is just awkward here to me Oldest known isn't right. Could go oldest established, but that doesn't sound much better than longest established to my ear. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "ipse dixit" seems like it may be a "fancy phrase" - or in other words, why are we using the latin instead of explaining it? Personally, I know what an "ipse dixit" is, but many won't, and it just sounds "fancy" and "pompous" potentially - recommend either adding a definition/explanation or changing to an English explanation used unproven AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "clearly recording" - seems obvious that they'd have to clearly record - I think you mean "systematically" or "strictly" or similar. Just removed it as redundant AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "aroused and enhanced" - non-neutral, could just be changed to "enhanced" Okay AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "complete overview" is slightly oxymoronic - if something's an "overview" it's not really complete, and vice versa. Maybe reword? Again removed it. Always prefer to keep these succinct if possible AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "relied on ineffective and often dangerous treatments" -> "relied on treatments which were often ineffective and themselves harmful" Done, but removed themselves "Though ineffective, homeopathic preparations would rarely be detrimental, thus users are less likely to be harmed by the treatment that is supposed to be helping them" - grammatical inconsistency - "would be"+"were" or "are rarely"+"are" - I'll let you pick :P I think I changed this one before. Must have introduced the inconsistency. Went with are. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "homeopathists" - should this not be "homeopaths"? Yep. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "the Nazi regime in Germany was fascinated by homeopathy," - unless "fascinated by" can be directly sourced, I recommend the more neutral "interested in" Source says "liked it a lot". That doesn't sound great either. Maybe fond. It is in this one.[1]. He is notable too and already mentioned in the article. Made a few other little changes while I was at it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "Unschuld further argues" - what follows isn't really a theory/argument, but a statement - recommend "says" or "states" Done AIRcorn (talk) "and to an irrational preference for "natural" products, which people think are the basis of homeopathic preparations." the word "irrational" isn't in the cited ref here on the page listed - I think the sentence stands fine without the word irrational though. Done AIRcorn (talk) "be a beneficiary of National Health Service (NHS) funding" -> "receive National Health Service (NHS) funding" Done AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "the funding ceased in 2017" -> "funding for homeopathic remedies by the NHS stopped in 2017" Made some tweaks AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "the blacklist of forbidden prescription items" - as before, just "list" Okay AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) The second paragraph in 21st century talks about Australia then just jumps to the US with no distinction - I had to look into it to figure out that the next sentence was the US FDA, not some Australian version. Fair point. Clarified. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) End of history section "dispute particular inclusions" - I think it'd be better to say "include different material" or similar and not say "dispute" here. I tried a few version, but couldn't really come up with a better wording. The trouble with your suggestion is that it is not just including different remedies, but disputes over remedies included in other materia. I might think on this some more and come back to it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "generally referring to them using Latin or faux-Latin names." - can "faux-Latin" be replaced with something that doesn't hold the negative connotation of "faux"? Removed. Latin is enough. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Homeopaths say this is to ensure accuracy" - this holds a negative connotation - I recommend: "Homeopaths claim that the use of Latin or Latin sounding names is to maintain accuracy" - maybe it's just because the sentence now is too short that it seems negative to me. I prefer the more concise sentence and don't really see how this is negative. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "and has been described as "utter idiocy"." - yes, it's a cited quote, but I don't think it's due weight - I think it's enough to call it pseudoscience. I feel this needs something stronger so went with "extremely pseudo-scientific" "handed down a decree which stated that electrohomeopathy was an unrecognized system of medicine which was quackery" - "ruled that electrohomeopathy was quackery, and limited legal recognition of it as medicine" Reworded. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) End of Preparations and treatment section - very well written and good changes made to it "scientists have long considered homeopathy a sham[137] or a pseudoscience," I don't think sham is necessary - pseudoscience with 4 citations and quackery with one are enough imo. While yes, it's cited and correct, we should avoid "overkill" of just throwing every negative label possible at it. Going to disagree with this one. Thought about it overnight and I think this is the correct weight to give. I feel we need a strong sentence to lead the Evidence and Efficacy section. We use Psuedoscience and quackery in the lead so I think there is room for "sham" here. It is also a more obvious description for lay people (compared to pseudoscience and quackery). I can take it to the talk if you want? AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "His predecessor, John Beddington, referring to his views that homeopathy "has no underpinning of scientific basis" being "fundamentally ignored" by the Government." this isn't a complete sentence as it stands. "Person, referring to his views that..." - either needs changed to "Person held the view that..." or something added after. Sorry for not knowing the proper term to explain the sentence the way it stands now - coffee is broken today :( Hmmm. I don't know what that is saying either. Looks liem I trimmed to much of the original. Fixed the dead link and clarified. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "The very low concentration" - recommend not italicizing, it's not a MOS allowed use of emphasis that I can see. To emphasize it more, you could say "extremely" or "exceedingly" I think I noticed this in my old review. Will change now. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) The first two sentences in the Plausibility of dilutions section are redundant and duplicate information. Hah. Must habe read that dozens of times and still missed it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Government-level reviews have been conducted in recent years." - {{when}} - recommend simply removing this sentence Fair AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Meta-analyses, essential tools to summarize evidence of therapeutic efficacy," - if meta-analyses is linked, I don't think the comma-delineated explanation of what a meta-analysis is is necessary Maybe. I feel the short explanation might be useful though. It is just eight words and doesn't actual describe what they are, but more why they are important. Especially as much of the countering evidence relies on individual primary studies. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I'm going to play with the table in this section a bit, please feel free to further play with or revert me - it just seems very odd being a full width table I was going to do that originally, but was worried it would look strange on small screens. I don't know if there is a way to test this without having a small screen. Will leave it, I am sure someone will tell us if it looks horrible. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) End of Evidence and efficacy section I have no problems with the Ethics and safety section. "In Spain lobby groups are trying to get rid of this easy registration procedure for homeopathic remedies." - recommend "In 2018, the Association for the protection of patients from pseudo-scientific therapies (APETP) in Spain began lobbying for stricter regulation of homeopathic remedies, including the elimination of simple registration as acceptable for marketing." - the name of the group per the source. Okay. Made some changes to shorten it up a bit. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Ontario became the first province in the country to regulate the practice of homeopathy, a move that caused widespread criticism." (from who?) Scientists and doctors. Will clarify. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "while noted the concerns the government did not adopt the recommendation." - this is not grammatically correct but I can't figure out what exactly you're trying to say here. "while not9ing the concerns" fixed AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) For the Prevalence subsection, recommend adding years - such as "In 1999, it was reported that there were X in Y country" or similar. I added it to the second paragraph. Since it is from the same source and directly follows I didn't add it to the German and French statement. Everything else seems to be adequately covered. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "resemble conventional medicines" - "resemble conventional medicines in their packaging" to be clear :) True AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "In the United States the homeopathic market is worth about the $3 billion-a-year" - the end of that needs a fix Yep. Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "A 2017 systemic review found no English language surveys" - recommend "public surveys" or "surveys of the population" or similar to make clear. Added a wikilink. Hope that suffices. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) End of Regulation and prevalence section I have no problems with the veterinary use section. Cite errors all fixed, thanks :)

Comments

One of these pictures of Hahnemann might be good substitutes: taken from a book published in 1837. a Daguerreotype from 1841. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and User:Aircorn feel free to use either of those images, and feel free to begin working on the issues I've already identified if you'd like - I do not have a problem with you actively working on it while I complete my review. As you have said, this is an article that I don't know how many other people would've taken on, and I am going to be taking great care to ensure it meets all criteria and solidly so for your benefit. The last thing I want is for this article to pass a good article review here then ultimately be delisted quickly by "detractors" because they find some minor technical issue like "that one section is too long per "summary style"!!!!" or something. I realize that I am asking a lot of work from you to rewrite entire sections during a review, and I'm sure I'll end up with probably 10kb of nitpicks about prose/grammar when I finish that part of the review. Thus, I'm happy to extend the on-hold time past a week for as long as you're willing to commit to actively developing the article towards improvements - because I think that it's close enough and that you seem willing to put in the work to get there. I plan to complete my prose review within a couple days, and I apologize for the review taking this long - again, I am trying to get this extremely correct for your benefit so that this article is a "strong GA" which someone who wants to demote can't just find some flimsy reason that we miss. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

p.s. somehow I pinged User:ArcticDragonfly when refactoring their comment to be on one line (for ease of organization, as I have a feeling this section may get long) - apologies for that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I apologise, for my absence. I had computer issues and then a busy weekend. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this. I will reply to your points below. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments that are  Done

Prosification of "Explanations of perceived effects" I agree with you and initially planed to do this, then decided against it for two reasons. One I didn't have access to the source (it was present before my editing attempts) so was worried I would not be able to keep it verifiable and I wasn't sure how to make it into prose without it being a pseudo list anyway. I could make it into a table and add it to the efficacy section maybe. I also dislike the Science offers... intro to that section so that would fix that too. Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica Added two primary sources. Hope they suffice. One is the original version and the other a contemporary one. Copyright concerns I worked through all of these.[2] Focus This is a tricky one. I have already reduced the article prose size from 72kb to 53kb since I reviewed the article in June. I actually created the Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy article as part of the push for this being a GA as I felt this section had become bloated. While it could probably be trimmed some more I am weary about removing too much more information from this section given its key importance in a controversial topic. I generally agree with you on the dilutions section. I felt this point is made quite a few times so will look at reducing that some (probably not to a paragraph or two though) I disagree somewhat on the regulations and prevalence sections though. One issue is that these articles become Euro or American centric. I tried quite hard to make sure these two sections covered the rest of the world as much as possible. In fact if there had been more available information I would like to have expanded the prevalence section some more into Asia, Africa and other places that are not mentioned. There is also no main to link to (although I could create one I guess). This might take a while and be somewhat controversial so will come back to it Images Removed Mortar photo as its not of great importance I did a Tineye search for the photo and it is used in 210 different websites so that didn't help much. Will replace wit the first one found by ArcticDragonfly. Prose Will work through these. Answered these in the collapsed section above. Made some changes suggested and adapted others. AIRcorn (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review this. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The book for the "explanations" section seems to be available for free checkout on the internet archive library. I think turning it into a table, but moving details into a paragraph or two (so that the table only includes "placebo effect", "unassisted natural healing", etc).

Happy with the citations/copyright concerns I identified, but again I'll hold off on a full in depth neutrality/sourcing review until the prose is in its "final" state. I am also happy to let the evidence/efficacy section slide provided the one subsection (explanation of effects) is improved as above. I also am not certain but I think that Ethics and safety may be better bumped up to its own level 2 heading instead of subsection of "evidence/efficacy" - but again I'm open to your opinion on that.

Appreciate you looking on the dilutions section reduction. Upon another look, I'm happy leaving the regulation section as is. I can't see much to add and the size is not overwhelming at this time. I will note that Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy seems to be the "main page" for this, but at the same time this article isn't overly detailed - that article could be expanded tons more than this one. Happy for you to take the time you need on the dilution section.

Happy with the pictures and with your commitment to work through the prose issues. I'm in no rush if you're not, so as long as you'll check in every few days and it looks like you're making progress on the article I'm happy to leave it on hold for a reasonable amount of time. I'll update the above sections momentarily. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez I reduced the dilutions section and managed to also do some to the efficacy section. It might be worth another look now. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to note I've seen this, have done a cursory look at the work and it all seems good for now, but I will give you the benefit of a full review, including the parts I "postponed" (neutrality mainly) within the next couple days (likely on Sunday, if not sooner). I will actually ping you when the full review is complete. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn Great work on the article. I've done my "final" review for neutrality now that you've made the prose changes, and I've found a few more prose issues. If you'd go through the second review and make changes as you see fit, or discuss/explain why you feel they shouldn't be made, I am happy to look again when you get a chance. I am happy to work with you to resolve disagreements on the necessity of specific changes, and after we go through this set of recommendations I think it'll likely be passable, but I'll do one final pass just for completeness sake. I won't make you wait for that final pass unless I see any "failing" issues in the article - but I may offer you recommendations anyway if that's okay. My end goal with this overly-thorough review is to ensure that there is no question that this is a good article and to ensure that this controversial topic is in compliance with policy and guidelines - especially the neutrality, which is why I brought up some issues that may seem minor or nitpicky. As before, I'm happy for you to take the time you need, but if you think it'll be over a 3-4 days, please just let me know and ping me when you're done with this set of changes. Only other thing is I'd like you to reconsider the oscillococcinum picture and whether it's actually descriptive :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I think I got everything. Like usual changed most (not necessarily with your suggestions, but hopefully to clarify things a bit). Disagreed on a few, but that is fine. Let me know if any are sticking points and I can have another think about them. This has been a very thorough review, probably one of the most thorough I have been through. Thanks for taking the time to do this, it is much appreciated. Oh, I found another picture and changed the description fro oscillococcinum. Hope this one works better. AIRcorn (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on this User:Aircorn - I think it's in a position now where there's unlikely to be any decent argument that it doesn't meet the GA standards - and in fact in my opinion it's well above them. This was my goal - to get it to a point that people couldn't "complain" about it being a GA or being non-neutral, etc. Thanks for your work and patience through this process - I'll be completing the listing soon. Pleasure working with you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)