# Talk:Liber physiognomiae

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liber physiognomiae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


### Comments
One quick question: I'd have expected a section on what critics and scholars thought of the book, and how influential it was, whether contemporaries or moderns (probably both, actually). For instance, see De Materia Medica#Influence and effectiveness. Is there some good reason not to have such a section here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. Most of the sources I've found mention that the book was a hit and that people really dug it, but that's all that I can find. (And I've dug through Google Books, JSTOR, and BrillOnline Reference Works, among others.) I'm going to re-locate Thorndike's 1965 book to see if there's anything there. If so, I'll try to expand the final section, if that works for you.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That would be just right.
Good news! I found a source explaining why the book was important. I've added the source and will add the info tomorrow.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  20:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk)  14:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Greatly improved, thank you. What does "most overarching change" mean, however? I can't made head nor tail of it. Might be best to paraphrase it.
The author was kind of a pain in the butt to parse at time, which is one reason I quote him here; didn't want to get what he meant wrong! How about this half-paraphrase then?--Gen. Quon (Talk)  19:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
His use of English was Bush-rivalling. I think we're all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


### References
The "Bibliography" does not separate citations used in the References from 'Further reading'. It might be better to have 2 sections named 'Sources' and 'Further reading', or something along those lines.
I've changed it to sources.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Hellinga and Knuuttila appear to be unused.
They're used in references 26 and 20, respectively.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps Baynes&Smith (EB) should simply be removed and replaced, surely we can do better than relying on the EB?
Probably a good idea. I will look and see if any other source mentions those points.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and I note it's not even the famous out-of-copyright EB1911, but a version yet more antique.
I've removed two that were just redundant[1]. I'll try to get better sources added soon.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The 9th edition of EB, interestingly enough, seems to be the only source out there that explicitly notes that the first book is based on Aristotle and Galen (the 11th cut down Scot's article considerably). I believe that this is important info to note, but am unsure if I should remove it.--20:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Pick (1998) does not point to anything in the "Bibliography".
Thorndike (1965) doesn't point to anything either.
They're both listed in the source section: "Pick, Lucy (1998). "Michael Scot in Toledo..." and "Thorndike, Lynn (1965). Michael Scot..."--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This perfectly illustrates why Harvard links are a good idea, helping both the reader and other editors.
The twin problems of unused sources and broken references (pointing nowhere) would be more easily managed if the article used the Harvard mechanism to link refs to sources. This is not a GA requirement but it's obviously sensible in a historical article.
Makes sense. I'll try to implement that in the next few days if that works.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I have improved the references by making them all link to the sources.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that was quick work! It not only looks better, it's practically self-verifying.


### Minor details
The caption to the lead image makes it look as if Scot lived and copied manuscripts in the 16th century.
I have tried to make this clearer.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"(i.e. in regards to genus and species)" makes it look as if Scot was aware of modern taxonomy's concepts of genus and species, which he obviously was not. The wikilinks must go, and in place of them a brief note on what he intended by these terms is needed: perhaps with links to some medieval article.
I have now added a footnote explaining this.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Way better, many thanks.
Please gloss authors when you introduce them, e.g. 'the historian Charles Homer Haskins'.
I will get on this.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I got 'em.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


### Summary
This is now a well-polished article and I'm happy to award it a deserved GA. If you're going further to FAC, the best of luck. I do think Scot hedged his bets rather about dreams! And I'd encourage you to review an article or two from the GA nominations list yourself. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)