# Talk:Johann Joseph Dömling

This review is transcluded from Talk:Johann Joseph Dömling/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Kusma (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this. Hope to have comments here within a couple of days. Esculenta (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Here are my comments. The article looks to be in good shape and is based on solid sources. Much of the following commentary tries to tease out some extra details, but I understand that the sources might be limited in this respect.

Thank you very much for the detailed feedback! I'll get started with some of the easier bits and hope to finish by the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Lead

The lead could be expanded to provide a bit more context about Dömling's significance in the field of medicine and his contributions to physiology.
Did a bit.
link Romantic, typhoid fever, pneumonia
endogeneous -> endogenous (+ later as well)
Done the others.
Early life and education

possibly useful links: Bavaria, boarding school, Hamburg, naval surgeon
Bavaria is just a rough indication of where this is; I don't want to link to the modern state because actually, the town was in the Prince-Bishopric of Würzburg. Perhaps I'll need to clarify that?Expanded Bavaria/PB of Würzburg. Added the others.
"Dömling first attended the village school in Merkershausen and then learned some Latin in the nearby Bad Königshofen." sentence is ... odd
Rephrased a bit.
Clarify financial support; was is usual for Franz Ludwig von Erthal to sponsor "gifted but impoverished students"? Please link the unusual term "prince-bishop" (which might also need capitalization?); I note there's the specific link Prince-Bishopric of Würzburg, which applies to von Erthal.
Any more context about the educational environment at the Juliusspital and the University of Würzburg?
What are you looking for? The university was (as far as I know) a fairly standard Catholic university.
"As a medical student, he assisted" subject of "he" a bit unclear
Improved?
While the article mentions his work on carbon monoxide in blood, it could benefit from more specifics about his other research findings and their impact on the field of physiology.
The difficulty is that most of the research about Dömling is Gerabek's work that places him in the context of Schelling and Döllinger but says nothing about carbon monoxide. I have not been able to find anything much about Dömling and carbon monoxide from before 2020.
"The main topic of the thesis is the" is->was
Done.
Academic career

links: Göttingen, Prague, Dresden, Leipzig, Jena, pathology
Links added.
capitalize policlinic?
It is not supposed to be a proper name here.
The article states that Dömling was popular with students, but it doesn't explain why. Any info about his teaching methods or any innovative approaches he used?
Gerabek deduces the popularity from how the students reacted after his death.
any more information about the significance of his interactions with other scholars and how they influenced his work?
Not really :(
Medical philosophy, research, and ppublications

link empirical research, oxidised, carbon dioxide
Done the first and last. Oxidised is a redirect to redox, which I do not think is very helpful.
Explain why his opposition to humorism was significant at the time. For example, the statement "he denied that the liver had a purifying function." is interesting statement, but I think needs understanding of contemporary medical context to fully understand. It would be useful to clarify what exactly Dömling meant by denying the liver's "purifying" function, Explain the prevailing beliefs about liver function at the time, and briefly mention how our understanding of liver function has evolved since then. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of Dömling's position and its significance in the history of medical knowledge.
I have added a little bit of general medico-historical context, but I do not feel qualified to trace the evolution of our understanding of liver function.
If possible, provide more detailed analysis or summaries of his major works.
There is not a lot.
"Dömling originally supported a mechanistic physiology." what does this mean (in layperson's terms)?
Explained a bit.
What was the impact of his findings on carbon monoxide in human blood and how did it influenced subsequent research?
I can't find anything about this.
Death and aftermath

Any more context for why a fake letter blaming Horsch for Dömling's death was published. What was the motivation behind it, and how was it received by the public or medical community?
Added a little; probably mostly dislike of Schelling and his friends?
Succession: Mention any contributions Ignaz Döllinger made after succeeding Dömling, if relevant.
added a tiny bit.
link chair
Linked.
Works

are these all of his works?
There is also at least one essay in the journal he edited. I'll try to reference it properly and perhaps add it. Will double check the sources on this one.
These are all of the important ones according to Gerabek, who also has some "minor" works. I think Engelhardt has an (uncommented) more complete list.
translated titles would be nice (but not GA necessary)
Added.
I noticed PMID 15637789 isn't used as a source; perhaps the content is equivalent to Gerabek 1995?
I expect there is not much in that paper that isn't in Gerabek's other publications; this version has zero citations and the "Würzburgwiki" author seems to have used it and not found anything additional to what I have.
is that external link of any real value? I don't see anything in that less detailed article that isn't already in the English article
It was a leftover from before I expanded the article, gone now.
@Esculenta: Thank you very much for your review and for asking some difficult questions (I am very much a complete amateur in history of medicine). I hope the article is ready for another look. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in addressing my suggestions!
Wrapping up:

Images: both images have suitable licensing and are used appropriately in the article.
Spot checks: I verified several of the statements cited to Gerabek 1995, Lanska 2023, and Wiesing (1989); no issues noted.
A nitpick: I noticed the linked title for Sticker (1932) leads to its Worldcat entry; to me this seems redundant (and I suppose unusual as I haven't seen practice before), as the OCLC link leads to the same place.
Concluding, I think the article meets all of the GA requirements, and am happy to promote it. Cheers, Esculenta (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)