Talk:Bates method/GA1

GA Review

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

Add Citations

I think it is an OK article. Add a few more pictures, some citations and fix the dispute, than we can pass or fail it.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give examples of where in the article you think citations need to be added? To me the article seems well-sourced except possibly for two paragraphs regarding criticism, discussed here and here, which have been worked on to be as non-interpretative as possible. If it came down to those two paragraphs being the only thing stopping this from being a Good Article I suppose they could be deleted, but I think in present form they are fine and show why WP:OR should not be taken 100% literally in regards to this article, per WP:IAR. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Regarding your recommendation to "add a few more pictures", while there are more public domain images available, I'm not sure that any of them would really improve the article. The most obvious remaining option, illustrations of Bates' "sun treatment", would likely be controversial for reasons discussed here. Other available photographs would be difficult to establish a context for, or would require a perhaps unwieldy amount of explanation. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for closure

This article, while very good, is not in the kind of state a good article should be: there are OR tags, and still disagreements about undue weight. It's been well past the seven days allowed. As for additional images, why not one about eye muscles? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that in the context of this article, an image involving the workings of the eye (or someone's ideas regarding such) would require far too much explanation. Beyond that, I will reluctantly agree with you about the article not currently being in the state a Good Article should be. Recently I suggested a process which would be similar to GA review, but for the purpose of dispute resolution rather than upgrading the article's status. If implemented and established, I think such a process could get the article to a state where it could then pass as GA. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't know... something that shows which muscles specifcally Bates felt were "straining" the eye would be straight forward and helpful, and then an image/diagram showing the muscles in the eye responsible for focus to balance the POV. but yeah, it appears the original reviewer has stopped paying attn. I'm closing this at the end of today if no one else has ne objections. Like i said, we're past seven days and there's enough backlog at WP:GAN -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point Zappernapper. Did a quick scan in some books. These kind of pictures are presented in Bates his PSWG. Fig 4 on page 11. Diagram of the hypermetropic ( recti muscles ), Emmetropic (normal eye ) and Myopic Eyeball ( oblique muscles ). And I fully disagree with PSWG1920. A Picture explains much more than a 1000 words. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)