# Talk:Barend Joseph Stokvis

There is a secondary source in Lane that he described acute porphyria. He was a professor of pathology and possibly physiology too. http://www.bmj.com/content/2/2182/1383.1.full.pdf is an obituary in the BMJ. The Dutch version nl:Barend Joseph Stokvis sadly has no secondary sources. He is to be credited with work in carbohydrate metabolism and the fact that the hepatic synthesis of sugar may be a significant phenomenon in diabetes. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

His father was a physician and obstetrician in Amsterdam and was a leader in the Jewish community.[1] JFW | T@lk 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Still digging for sources. This is a 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article.
Lancet obituary doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)42738-3 JFW | T@lk 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Different sources give different dates for his professorship. The BMJ obituary (PMC 2401982) states that he was initially appointed at the Athenaeum in clinical medicine and general pathology in 1874, and that his appointment at the University of Amsterdam in 1877 was in general pathology and pharmacodynamics. Seeing that other sources are unclear, I will need to do further research to find out which source is correct. JFW | T@lk 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hes HS. Jewish physicians in the Netherlands 1600–1940. Assen: Van Gorcum & Co. pp. 157–9. ISBN 9023217438. JFW | T@lk 17:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. JFW | T@lk 03:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He is depicted in paintings with the insigna of the Knighthood (Orde van de Nederlandsche Leeuw) but I cannot find any good reference to support this. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barend Joseph Stokvis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next day or two, I'll do a close readthrough of the prose, noting any initial issues I see, and then begin the criteria checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


### Initial readthrough
On first pass, this looks like very solid work--clear, informative, and well-sourced. I've noted down a few quibbles below, mostly clarifying pronouns, but I don't anticipate any real obstacles to this being promoted to GA status.

"He may also have been" -- is the he here Stovkis or Bernard? I'm guessing Stovkis, but you should probably clarify.
"in which was considered an expert" -- should this be "in which he was considered"?
" His prolific output, mainly in chemical pathology,[3] included research into the metabolism of glycogen, uric acid, urea, studies into an epidemic of cholera in Amsterdam, the toxicity of Atropa belladonna, various pigmented substances in the blood (including porphyrins), the nature of the heart sounds, and several contributions in tropical medicine,[6] in which was considered an expert." -- this list gets a little tangled, since it appears to have sublists within the list. How about using semicolons to break these up, like this:
research into the metabolism of glycogen, uric acid, and urea; studies into an epidemic of cholera in Amsterdam, the toxicity of Atropa belladonna, various pigmented substances in the blood (including porphyrins), and the nature of the heart sounds; and several contributions in tropical medicine,[6] in which he was considered an expert.
Does that still capture the correct meaning?

"several other reports followed shortly after, and other drugs were also found to be porphyrogenic" -- Do you mean Stovkis published more reports, or other researchers built on his work? Consider rewriting the passive voice into active voice.
"His most important work" -- Another moment where you might clarify the pronoun; the last man referred to was Hoppe-Seyler, but I assume Stovkis is meant here.
" judged in the day" -- just a touch awkward. What about "judged by his contemporaries"--would that carry the same meaning?
"In 1879 he was elected a member" -- is the he Stovkis or Virchow?
 Done Thanks very much for your review. I have adopted your recommendations, particularly with regards to ambiguous use of "he". Further comments would be much appreciated. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


### Checklist
I wasn't sure whether I should leave the red link on Olof Hammarsten, but he seems to be notable enough to have been obituarised in Nature in 1941 (doi:10.1038/148195c0) and he's got an article on the Swedish Wikipedia.
With regards to A.C. Wertheim, I am pretty sure this chap could do with his own article too (he was an important character in 19th century Amsterdam to the point that he's got a park named after him). JFW | T@lk 08:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say have them both redlinks. A few good redlinks here and there help to encourage expansion, and they both seem potentially notable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)