This article suffers from several problems, not least of which is that the subject doesn't seem to be what the title says. As a result, we have a weird section header, identical to the article title. A big part of the article is devoted to biographical information on two people (one of them having his own article), which does not belong here. The huge excerpts are really undue, too. The article doesn't follow WP:MOS, either. In addition, it contains a lot of exquisite detail, too much so, I would say. The article (despite having an enormous amount of sources) contains a lot of unsourced statements (just one example: "Apart from providing valuable literature reviews and announcements of new publications, The Zoist was a constant, reliable source of information, disciplinary interaction, original accounts of phenomena, relevant case studies of its application to wide range of conditions, ranging from epilepsy, stammering, and headache, to torticollis, asthma, and rheumatism, and extensive reports of pertinent innovations and discoveries.") Many other things, appear to constitute original research and/or synthesis. In short, this article needs a huge amount of work... --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Randykitty, Thanks for your comments.
- As one extremely familiar with the phrenology/mesmerism/animal magnetism/phrenomesmerism/hypnotism interactions of the time, it is abundantly clear that The Zoist is a highly significant resource; yet greatly overlooked. I think that much of your criticism (above) relating to The Zoist itself is inaccurate, poorly informed, and unfounded. Accept your comments on Elliotson and Engledue; and have corrected the article on the first with the information deleted from here, and created an article on the second -- and then removed all but the briefest mention from this article of either man. Best, Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for your edits, they improved the focus of the article. However, if you re-read my comments, I didn't criticize The Zoist or its notability in the slightest. I am criticizing the way the article is written. It contains a lot of OR and SYNTH and basically reads as an original essay about this journal and its influence. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. The article looks like an excellent start for a paper in a history of science journal, but that is not what we do here. Please read the guidelines on OR and SYNTH and hopefully you'll see what I mean. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
