![]() | Contaminated haemophilia blood products was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I've spent a good deal of time on this article, I hope somebody could come up with a better title than "Contaminated haemophilia blood products." -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{removed potentially WP:BLP commentary from User:Gabeh73} -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
( remove potentially WP:BLP commentary from Nukeh) -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll post proper comments within a day or so. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There are significant problems with the structure of the article, as the lead (before the TOC) contains a lot of information that's not in the main text - see WP:LEAD. The presence of refs in the lead is often a sign of this. The few cases where refs are likely to be OK in a lead are for minor things like spelling, pronunciation and (if not controversial) etymology of words in the article's title. Since this is a contentious subject with potential legal implications, we also have to look carefully at the sources and how they are quoted. However we need to resolve the structure issue first, to avoid having to do the audit of refs and language twice. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
On a cursory review of this article I'm immediately struck by the presumed malice attributed in the intro to the manufacturers of the blood products, as well as the fact that all the sources are newspaper/news site sources. Surely this topic has been dealt with in slightly more scholarly works? In the current form, I could not imagine this could ever pass GAC. JFW | T@lk 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It's over 2 weeks since I posted comments on this article. There has been no response to my comments nor to the concerns raised by JFW, and the article itself has not had significant changes. I therefore have to conclude that the result of this review is a "fail".
There's some interesting material here. Please improve it to:
- - - - - - - - - Please place GA review comments and responses above this line - - - - - - - - -
![]() | Contaminated haemophilia blood products was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I've spent a good deal of time on this article, I hope somebody could come up with a better title than "Contaminated haemophilia blood products." -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{removed potentially WP:BLP commentary from User:Gabeh73} -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
( remove potentially WP:BLP commentary from Nukeh) -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll post proper comments within a day or so. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There are significant problems with the structure of the article, as the lead (before the TOC) contains a lot of information that's not in the main text - see WP:LEAD. The presence of refs in the lead is often a sign of this. The few cases where refs are likely to be OK in a lead are for minor things like spelling, pronunciation and (if not controversial) etymology of words in the article's title. Since this is a contentious subject with potential legal implications, we also have to look carefully at the sources and how they are quoted. However we need to resolve the structure issue first, to avoid having to do the audit of refs and language twice. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
On a cursory review of this article I'm immediately struck by the presumed malice attributed in the intro to the manufacturers of the blood products, as well as the fact that all the sources are newspaper/news site sources. Surely this topic has been dealt with in slightly more scholarly works? In the current form, I could not imagine this could ever pass GAC. JFW | T@lk 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It's over 2 weeks since I posted comments on this article. There has been no response to my comments nor to the concerns raised by JFW, and the article itself has not had significant changes. I therefore have to conclude that the result of this review is a "fail".
There's some interesting material here. Please improve it to:
- - - - - - - - - Please place GA review comments and responses above this line - - - - - - - - -