GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, as one of the disputants, I'll hold off on involvement in this article/Talk page for a week or two to help it to settle down for review. Thanks for giving your time to this Khazar2. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with the article at the moment, more-or-less. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this article has indeed reached an island of stability, so I'll start with my review. Since this article has proved more controversial than any GA I've previously undertaken, I'll follow my close read for prose and sourcing issues with an attempt to review issues others have raised on this talk page. I've made minor tweaks to the prose as I went, so please double-check me and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
Here are some comments on the first half; I'm hoping to get to the second half shortly.
Comments on "Reception" section:
My impression on my first readthrough is that this is a solid and well-written article: clear, concise, and well sourced, with no immediately obvious neutrality problems. Thanks to everybody who worked to get it to this point. As a next step, I'll take a look at some of the supporting sources and other discussions on this page to check for completeness and neutrality. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No response yet from Collect, but so far as I know nothing in the paragraph is contentious (i.e. I believe the facts are not in dispute), so I'm hoping it will be okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reported what Fraser said – without quotation marks as though there's something unique about the words. And I've added quotes in the footnotes from the CDC, Fraser and the Associated Press to make it clear that people were infected, not affected in some other way. Hopefully these quotations can be removed at a later date, because they're not necessary, but for now they're there to show that "affected" means "infected":
Fraser writes that the church's image has also been damaged by outbreaks of infectious diseases at its schools and camps. [1] Many Christian Scientists do not have their children vaccinated, and are less likely to self-report illness to physicians, so infection may remain undetected. [2] In 1972 128 students at a Christian Science school in Greenwich, Connecticut, contracted polio and four were left partially paralyzed. In 1982 a nine-year-old girl died of diptheria after attending a Christian Science camp in Colorado. [3] In 1985 128 people were infected with measles at Principia College, a Christian Science school in Elsah, Illinois, and three died. The death-to-case ratio was 2.3 percent; the usual rate in the United States is 0.1 percent or lower. [4] In 1994 190 people in six states were infected with measles spread by a child from a Christian Science family in Elsah, after she was exposed to it on a skiing holiday in Colorado. [5]
"All cases met the measles clinical case definition and were epidemiologically linked to the boarding school and/or college. Fourteen cases were serologically confirmed by detection of immunoglobulin M antibody. All cases occurred among persons not vaccinated before the outbreak. Eighteen prospective students from outside St. Louis County attended a carnival at the boarding school on April 16; eight developed measles after returning home (three to Maine, two to California, and one each to Missouri, New York, and Washington). Two cases of serologically confirmed measles occurred in persons outside the Christian Science communities. One case occurred in an unvaccinated 35-year-old physician who attended a tennis tournament on April 30 where students from the affected college competed. The other case occurred in a 9-month-old infant who visited a restaurant on April 30 where the college tennis team was eating."
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is clear and excellent; spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | All issues appear to be resolved. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |
I think this is ready to go as a GA in all other respects (though I do want to re-read it now that it's been revised), but it concerns me that three weeks into this process, the article is still seeing content disagreements and reverts between its two most prolific recent contributors. I'd like to give it another ten days to see if it can reach a reasonably stable version, and see where we're at then.
As before, I don't at all want this review to pressure anyone into a hasty or suboptimal resolution to these legitimate content issues, and I realize that an article with a topic this controversial and popular will always be in flux to some degree. But I do want to be sure that immediate concerns about accuracy and neutrality have been resolved, and that the article's not going back and forth daily. Hope that sounds fair to everybody. Again, thanks to all concerned for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 05:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Alex, in relation to the Twitchell case, you have changed "The conviction was later reversed" to "Their conviction was later overturned on a technicality." I don't think the latter wording is a fair reflection of the situation: the couple were found to have acted in good faith in the context of circumstances outlined here: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/416/416mass114.html. In any case, "overturned on a technicality" is both tendentious and tautologous. (All legal decisions are technical in nature.) Rather than getting into an edit war on this, can we agree on a fair wording? I'll leave it up to you to review the source info and come up with a fairer formulation. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 11:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that mentions of vaccination have been removed down to a single line from [2] to the current article. I see the content on increased morbidity has been removed. The well sourced content that she was infleunced by Quimby has been removed (Christian Scientists don't accept the actual history) [3]. All mention of Christian Science being made to look like science has been removed (possibly due to a misunderstanding that in the 19th century "science" meant the general search for knowledge, which was not the case in 1872). The mainstream viewpoint is being watered down and removed. Compare what was there: [4] to what is now there at Christian_Science#Health_and_healing. A positive spin has been put on that section by going back to primary sources again (S&H), and by overly relying on the nytimes, while discarding academic sources. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is now in much better shape than it was a few weeks ago. The evolution of the article in its present form, including sources cited, has resulted from consensus editing. (BTW, I don't know what "actual history" means and neither would any contemporary historian, or philosopher of history for that matter.) Be-nice:-) ( talk) 09:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello there; I've given this page a look through and have some thoughts. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, as one of the disputants, I'll hold off on involvement in this article/Talk page for a week or two to help it to settle down for review. Thanks for giving your time to this Khazar2. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with the article at the moment, more-or-less. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this article has indeed reached an island of stability, so I'll start with my review. Since this article has proved more controversial than any GA I've previously undertaken, I'll follow my close read for prose and sourcing issues with an attempt to review issues others have raised on this talk page. I've made minor tweaks to the prose as I went, so please double-check me and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
Here are some comments on the first half; I'm hoping to get to the second half shortly.
Comments on "Reception" section:
My impression on my first readthrough is that this is a solid and well-written article: clear, concise, and well sourced, with no immediately obvious neutrality problems. Thanks to everybody who worked to get it to this point. As a next step, I'll take a look at some of the supporting sources and other discussions on this page to check for completeness and neutrality. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No response yet from Collect, but so far as I know nothing in the paragraph is contentious (i.e. I believe the facts are not in dispute), so I'm hoping it will be okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reported what Fraser said – without quotation marks as though there's something unique about the words. And I've added quotes in the footnotes from the CDC, Fraser and the Associated Press to make it clear that people were infected, not affected in some other way. Hopefully these quotations can be removed at a later date, because they're not necessary, but for now they're there to show that "affected" means "infected":
Fraser writes that the church's image has also been damaged by outbreaks of infectious diseases at its schools and camps. [1] Many Christian Scientists do not have their children vaccinated, and are less likely to self-report illness to physicians, so infection may remain undetected. [2] In 1972 128 students at a Christian Science school in Greenwich, Connecticut, contracted polio and four were left partially paralyzed. In 1982 a nine-year-old girl died of diptheria after attending a Christian Science camp in Colorado. [3] In 1985 128 people were infected with measles at Principia College, a Christian Science school in Elsah, Illinois, and three died. The death-to-case ratio was 2.3 percent; the usual rate in the United States is 0.1 percent or lower. [4] In 1994 190 people in six states were infected with measles spread by a child from a Christian Science family in Elsah, after she was exposed to it on a skiing holiday in Colorado. [5]
"All cases met the measles clinical case definition and were epidemiologically linked to the boarding school and/or college. Fourteen cases were serologically confirmed by detection of immunoglobulin M antibody. All cases occurred among persons not vaccinated before the outbreak. Eighteen prospective students from outside St. Louis County attended a carnival at the boarding school on April 16; eight developed measles after returning home (three to Maine, two to California, and one each to Missouri, New York, and Washington). Two cases of serologically confirmed measles occurred in persons outside the Christian Science communities. One case occurred in an unvaccinated 35-year-old physician who attended a tennis tournament on April 30 where students from the affected college competed. The other case occurred in a 9-month-old infant who visited a restaurant on April 30 where the college tennis team was eating."
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is clear and excellent; spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | All issues appear to be resolved. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |
I think this is ready to go as a GA in all other respects (though I do want to re-read it now that it's been revised), but it concerns me that three weeks into this process, the article is still seeing content disagreements and reverts between its two most prolific recent contributors. I'd like to give it another ten days to see if it can reach a reasonably stable version, and see where we're at then.
As before, I don't at all want this review to pressure anyone into a hasty or suboptimal resolution to these legitimate content issues, and I realize that an article with a topic this controversial and popular will always be in flux to some degree. But I do want to be sure that immediate concerns about accuracy and neutrality have been resolved, and that the article's not going back and forth daily. Hope that sounds fair to everybody. Again, thanks to all concerned for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 05:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Alex, in relation to the Twitchell case, you have changed "The conviction was later reversed" to "Their conviction was later overturned on a technicality." I don't think the latter wording is a fair reflection of the situation: the couple were found to have acted in good faith in the context of circumstances outlined here: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/416/416mass114.html. In any case, "overturned on a technicality" is both tendentious and tautologous. (All legal decisions are technical in nature.) Rather than getting into an edit war on this, can we agree on a fair wording? I'll leave it up to you to review the source info and come up with a fairer formulation. Be-nice:-) ( talk) 11:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that mentions of vaccination have been removed down to a single line from [2] to the current article. I see the content on increased morbidity has been removed. The well sourced content that she was infleunced by Quimby has been removed (Christian Scientists don't accept the actual history) [3]. All mention of Christian Science being made to look like science has been removed (possibly due to a misunderstanding that in the 19th century "science" meant the general search for knowledge, which was not the case in 1872). The mainstream viewpoint is being watered down and removed. Compare what was there: [4] to what is now there at Christian_Science#Health_and_healing. A positive spin has been put on that section by going back to primary sources again (S&H), and by overly relying on the nytimes, while discarding academic sources. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is now in much better shape than it was a few weeks ago. The evolution of the article in its present form, including sources cited, has resulted from consensus editing. (BTW, I don't know what "actual history" means and neither would any contemporary historian, or philosopher of history for that matter.) Be-nice:-) ( talk) 09:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello there; I've given this page a look through and have some thoughts. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)