Talk:Florence Nightingale

❧

Florence Nightingale (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which was archived on 7 August 2025. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Florence Nightingale article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Florence Nightingale was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 7, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 13 dates. [show]

October 21, 2004, October 21, 2005, October 21, 2006, October 21, 2007, October 21, 2008, October 21, 2009, October 21, 2010, October 21, 2012, October 21, 2014, October 21, 2015, October 21, 2018, October 21, 2020, and October 21, 2022

Biography: Military / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Nursing Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Logistics / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Military logistics and medicine task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

History of Science Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Christianity: Theology / Saints / Anglicanism Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Asteroid name after her

Asteroid (3122) Florence was named after her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3122_Florence

This should be added to the article.

Edit request to add link for British India

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a Wikipedia link to British India at "India" in paragraph 2. Youaresoup (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done: Unnecessary per WP:OVERLINK; see also WP:EGG, which this borders on. Remsense ‥ 论 16:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Kızıltoprak Florence Nightingale Hospital in Kadıköy

It seem that the official name of the hospital is "Kadıköy Florence Nightingale Medical Center", Kızıltoprak is a street name, so "Kızıltoprak" should probably be removed: Merlin.anthwares (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Collected Works of Florence Nightingale

"Collected Works of Florence Nightingale" was completed in 2012. Would it make sense to remove "projected" and change the dates to (2001-2012)?

Merlin.anthwares (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

Florence Nightingale

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a vital article, and is in poor condition. I have done some editing on this article, but still needs lots of work and guiding.

Thanks in advance, Thelifeofan413 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Doesn't look all that bad to me. A few thoughts from a quickish skim-through:

We could do without the load of citations in the lead: a lead should summarise the detailed and cited material from the main text and doesn't need citations of its own except for quotations in direct speech.
On the other hand a few more citations wouldn't go amiss in the main text: penultimate para of Early life; first para of Crimean War; second para of Literature and the women's movement, and footnotes c and k.
For date ranges, as in "Collected Works of Florence Nightingale (2001-2012)" the hyphen should be an unspaced en-dash (MoS)
Duplicate links, once taboo, are now, I gather, no longer regarded as a capital offence. All the same, you might like to revisit those for Crimean War, Ottoman Empire (twice), Mary Clarke, Eliza Roberts, BBC (twice), The Times, Crimea, coxcomb, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Florence Nightingale Museum (twice), St Thomas' Hospital, Claydon House, Alexis Soyer, Aldershot, Lytton Strachey (twice), Eminent Victorians (ditto), Charles Dickens, Mark Bostridge and Church of England.
And my biggest complaint about the article in its present state: there are just too many images crowding each other out and sandwiching the text between them. There are examples of the latter in Early life, Crimean War, Biographies and Other. As you have a nice Gallery at the end of the article you could move a few images down there to relieve the overcrowding in the main text.

I hope these few hasty thoughts are of some use. Tim riley talk 12:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have finished all your comments, apart from the references. Is there anything else needing work? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

History6042

To make this article as good as possible you should;

Add alt texts to all images.
Add archives to all sources possible.
Remove Sribd as a source.
Remove IMDB as a source.
Remove the gallery section per WP:GALLERY.
Remove excessive imagery, it makes it a pain to read the article on mobile.
Add "The Lady with the Lamp" to the others names section in the infobox.
Add Google Books links to all books.
The sentence in the Lady with the Lamp section needs an inline citation.
Add her parents and sister to the infobox.
Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I added most of your comments, but can you check the current state of the article before I add the last point. Sorry for the late response. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@History6042. Forgot to ping. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

Unsuccessful. Laun chba ller 14:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Authorship Citation bot Copyvio detector External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions
v t e

This review is transcluded from Talk:Florence Nightingale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thelifeofan413 (talk · contribs) 09:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be your GA reviewer. I'm currently attempting to find and review articles with very high viewership, and not only does this article receive 1.2 million yearly views, but also happens to be a level three vital article. With all of this in mind, it is extremely important for this article to be reviewed, so I'll be picking this up. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 02:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

I don't think this article is ready for GA status. I'm not sure if the nominator addressed the changes requested by Tim Riley. There are still some unsourced statements, the Television section is written more like a list than in prose style, and the Legacy subsection includes several subheadings that contain only a single paragraph each. 24.239.145.13 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for commenting this! I was wondering the same thing myself in regards to the unsourced statements. I'm going to look through the article a bit more before making my decision, though ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 16:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed most of the paragraphs that are one paragraph except for one. I'm on break so I'll get to overhauling the section in one or two days. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'm glad I waited for comment instead of quick-failing this. I'll refrain from starting the review until this overhaul is complete, but may begin the spot check before then. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 16:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to check in on your progress with the overhaul. I noticed that you've made major edits to the article, but I want to confirm with you that you are ready for me to open this review. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I need to do a bit more work but my schedule is tight. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! It has been nearly a month, and I'd like to reach out about your progress once more. If you are still unable to complete the overhaul, I may have to fail you temporarily, but I would be more than happy to open the review again once you are ready; leave a message on my talk page and I will do it. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 01:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I've been really busy. I can try to do it but is on hold, currently. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I wont close the review, just let me know when you're ready :) ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 22:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I finished the paragraph. Could you give me more advice? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm so sorry for the late reply! The paragraph looks good! Let me know when you are ready to properly start this review :) ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I am ready for the review. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Excellent! The review will begin tomorrow or Thursday! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 21:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Spot check by IAWW

Hello, I am not the reviewer for this article, so Reverosie can take my comments as suggestions. I happened to notice this review is stalled, and I also noticed it is a long way off meeting the "verifiable" critierion. There are seven instances of uncited information at the end of paragraphs, or entire uncited paragraphs. I will spot check to see if the source-text integrity issues run deeper:

Spot check numbers based on this version. Note I am checking the citations that I suspect will have issues – the check is not entirely random.

[24]:

Doesn't support at least on the cited page: In 1838, her father took the family on a tour in Europe where she was introduced to the English-born Parisian hostess Mary Clarke
who did not care for her appearance is bad paraphrasing for her not respecting various female customs
"she was incapable of boring anyone" is from the previous page and the quote is not from the book itself so some proper attribution or a citation to the original source should be there. I'll stop there for this one.
I'll stop there for this one

[25a]:

Nightingale underwent the first of several experiences that she believed were calls from God in February 1837 while at Embley Park: The month and Embley park location
I won't check the rest as the page range is really long and really should be narrowed for better verifiability

[10c]: Almost, though I would consider "she regarded the experience as a turning point in her life" to be a stronger statement than in the source.

[119]: Most of She set an example of compassion, commitment to patient care and diligent and thoughtful hospital administration. The first official nurses' training programme, her Nightingale School for Nurses, opened in 1860 and is now called the Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery at King's College London is not supported

Since there are widespread text-source integrity issues in this article, I think we can not be confident it meets the verifiability criterion without a full source-text integrity check, which would take a long time for an article like this and is outside the scope of a GA review. I personally would fail this so the issues can be worked on outside the GA system. Pinging @Reverosie and @Thelifeofan413 IAWW (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: @Reverosie: @Thelifeofan413: - this review has been open for about four months without a full review. A spot-check on 30 October by IAWW identified multiple verifiability issues that suggest significant work may be needed to ensure TSI. Unless anyone objects within the next few days, I think this nomination should be closed as unsuccessful so the article can be improved outside the GA system (the nominator or anyone else is of course welcome to renominate once issues are resolved). Best, Zzz plant (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.