Talk:Bates method/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
With some trepidation, I am going to try to review this article. I'll work my way through it, but there is one point I'd like to make at the start. The lead has a problem that is unfortunately common among articles that deal with fringe topics, which is that it is so careful to state that the method is not generally accepted, that it neglects to explain what the method actually is. I think that the paragraph about Aldous Huxley is not essential to the lead, but that it is essential to give some sort of overview of the methods that Bates recommended. I realize that the scattered nature of his ideas makes this challenging, but even so I don't think the lead will be adequate without it. Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. In response to your concerns, I think that the method itself is adequately summarized in the first paragraph of the lead. The techniques were intended to undo a supposed habitual "strain" to see, and centered around visualization and movement. Anyone who wants to know about specific techniques can scroll down to the "Treatments" section.

I definitely think the paragraph about Huxley belongs in the lead. His case is probably the single most notable aspect of the subject, and the lead is supposed to summarize the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that "visualization and movement" is descriptive enough -- you need to give the reader a more concrete sense of what the method involves -- say one sentence each for two of his most typical exercises. With over half the lead devoted to criticism, it should be possible to spare a little more space for description. Regarding Huxley, I'll buy what you're saying, but then I think you should make it more clear why his role is notable -- just using the method is not enough, you should make clear in the lead that he also advocated for it. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've attempted to do both of those things. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) I'm happy with the lead now, and will move on to the body. Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think A. Huxley belongs in the intoduction. Don't forget this article is about two differnt subjects. The Bates method and Natural Vision Improvement. Aldous Huxley is just one single person who also expermented with LSD ! This might very well explain his strange behaviour. ( It might also very well have influenced his eyesight, just like alcohol. ) Since Looie496 probably is not aware this article is also about NVI. You have got a strong live argument for a title change. The given only available definitions make clear the BM and NVI are not exactly the same. If Huxley stays his experimenting with drugs must be mentioned also. Original research is also not mentioning important details. In my opinion Woods is far more interesting to mention in the introduction, because the controversy is then immediatly explained. Less than 2 % are succesful. Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, what is your motivation to help improving this article ? I appreciate it, don;t get me wrong, just curious. Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a neuroscientist and currently maintainer of WikiProject Neuroscience, and my interest is for Wikipedia to have good, useful articles about science-related topics. Huxley belongs because he is very famous as the writer of Brave New World and The Doors of Perception. Regarding NVI, I am not going to review the article on that basis. If an article on NVI requires different material than an article on the Bates method, it needs a separate article. I am going to review this as an article about the Bates method and nothing else. Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accomodation

This section could use an illustration. Do you think this one would be helpful?
"Reaffirmed" is not the right word. How about "advocated"?
"which were not reproduced independently" is ambiguous. It could mean that nobody ever tried, or that people tried and failed. The reality, as I understand it, is that Bates's claims are inconsistent with experimental data collected by others, but it isn't clear to me exactly what this sentence is saying or how the source supports it. Also I'm not keen on the Quackwatch source -- the Duke-Elder textbook would be better.
There really must be a better source for the statement that many animals focus by changing eyeball shape. I can probably find a better one myself if you have problems here.