Talk:Civilian Public Service/GA2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Typos: 1) "Mennoniite Publishing House" 2) WWI -> WW I. I've never seen WWI (without the space) be used in print before, but I see that WWI is a redirect to World War I so I'm willing to be convinced that is acceptable. 3) C. Everett Koop block quote--reference outside quotation marks.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- 1) ISBNs are missing from multiple books listed as references. 2) "This research aided in development of more effective new drugs that proved more effective than quinine.[43]" Specify, or drop it. If they suffered and died futilely ruling out potential vaccines, say that. If they actually aided in finding a real one, say that too. Feels weasel-y the way it's worded now. 3) I have a generalized concern that too many of the extraordinary claims of medical mistreatment and experimentation are based on one, perhaps two sources--the PBS documentary and Keim's book, assuming that PBS didn't use Keim for its own source. I believe it appropriate for the editors of this article to assemble a better array of sources to deflect skepticism that will likely arise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation, and I just don't feel comfortable that this has met this threshold yet. I see that a number of additional footnotes have been added since last GA review, but it still feels sparse.
- The Gingerich and Krahn books predate the ISBN system; it is likely the Dyck book never received an ISBN number (none is listed in the book). I moved a non-reference book into "Further reading" and provided the ISBN.
- I removed the "more effective than quinine" sentence. I can't find a source that gives more details than the Keim book.
- I add a third source, Gingerich, to the medical experimentation section. [2] ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- 1) ISBNs are missing from multiple books listed as references. 2) "This research aided in development of more effective new drugs that proved more effective than quinine.[43]" Specify, or drop it. If they suffered and died futilely ruling out potential vaccines, say that. If they actually aided in finding a real one, say that too. Feels weasel-y the way it's worded now. 3) I have a generalized concern that too many of the extraordinary claims of medical mistreatment and experimentation are based on one, perhaps two sources--the PBS documentary and Keim's book, assuming that PBS didn't use Keim for its own source. I believe it appropriate for the editors of this article to assemble a better array of sources to deflect skepticism that will likely arise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation, and I just don't feel comfortable that this has met this threshold yet. I see that a number of additional footnotes have been added since last GA review, but it still feels sparse.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Is it possible to take the image out of the notes section?
- Can you shrink the main image; it makes reading the lead pretty difficult.
Just a few other minor notes, on request from Jclemens... the GA review generally looks good, and the article is pretty close too! —Giggy 07:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)