Talk:De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Septem

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Meta Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Untitled[edit]

The correct title of the book, published in Basel in 1543, is De humani corporis fabrica libri septem, or "On the fabric of the human body, in seven parts." I'm moving the page to the correct title, and will work on this page and that on Vesalius in the coming months. encephalon 10:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References & substance[edit]

Although I don't dispute any of the data on the page, it would be good to have a few more references, preferably in-line.

If this book is as immportant and revolutionary as is claimed here, we should put a bit more info in this article. Some more data on what the book contains, its style and its critical reception and known use would be good.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Volumes of the collection- consider rewording the end of the 1st sentence • You use the word “each” 3 times at very close points in that paragraph. Consider rewording the sentence, or choosing a new word • You could give an actual description about what Vesalius says about each of the organs, instead of just referring to them. • Give some specific points about what makes Vesalius so unique • Discovered that Galen's observations were inconsistent with those of his,-vague, consider rewording • brought him European fame- be specific • rapidly appeared..- don’t need two periods

I like how you talk about the surviving copies, as well as the reception of the book. That is all relevant information. I also like the pictures you chose as well as how you divided the sections by book. I think you could go into a little more detail on that as well as a few other areas as some of the information is good, but a little vague. Also there are quite a few run on sentences. All in all great work! Alexnicolejones (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language, grammar and syntax[edit]

This article has evidently not been written by someone who has English as a first language. I have language edited the last section, which I came across while researching Richardson & Carman. If I have guessed the intended meaning incorrectly in any case, please amend. I would suggest the first section needs similar treatment. Robocon1 (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I'm only talking about the section titled "Volumes of the Collection". Robocon1 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Galen??[edit]

"Galen" is introduced suddenly and without explanation or cross-reference, leaving me with no clue who he is. I can gather from context that he is the author of some earlier work on anatomy, but a brief introductory sentence is needed. I can't do it as I am ignorant of the subject (hence why I am reading the article) - can someone who knows what's what fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.200.108 (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added an introductory sentence with links. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"vivisection of the eye"?[edit]

Vivisection? Really? Ouch! I suspect this is a mistake and should read "dissection", but we are talking about an era where they bound books in human skin, so how can a casual passer-by like me know for sure? Again, can someone who knows the history double check this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.200.108 (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De humani corporis fabrica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818075226/http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/books.htm to http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/books.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]