Talk:Death panel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 12:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Pretty good overall, [Edit: Some POV and syntesis problem removed] but the first lines in the lead are redundant with the word "rumor". Is there another way to write that for clarity? Done Final review note: The prose seemd fine but needed a general copy edit for a good deal of narrative prose where the use of some terms pulled from references may be somewhat contentious and was edited for general neutrality. || Pass
(b) (MoS)	You seem to have a pretty good structure per MOS Final Review note: Some header seemed to puff the article and a couple seemed too critical. || Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Well referernced	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	appear to be RS	Pass
(c) (original research)	does not appear to be OR [Edit:although in a general edit some synthesis of material was removed	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	it has all major aspects	Pass
(b) (focused)	seems well focused but could use some clarity in lead {Edit: Noticed some small focus issues and fixed]  Done	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
It could use a little more encyclopedic tone in the lead a but that is part of above concerns. Done Suggest another use for second use of "Rumors" with "or" to give detail of the somewhat contentious word and a general sweep for neutral wording. Done Galleries are oddly used. Perhaps individual images Done	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Seems to have no current edit wars. Could use a few days hold on this to just see how it goes while work is done	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	this will take some time to check through as images are not linked to image page to varify tags	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Need to reduce the one image of the protesters. Done Remove the cropped version in the lead double image as undue weight for that pic. Done Images in multiple portraits should link to image page and text to Wikilink Remove galleries per consensus  Done Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	some work needed.{done}}

Discussion

Not a whole lot a couple of days casual work when you get a chance can't fix. Very glued to the removal of the redundant imagery of the protester sign for this article and more neutral wording. Wikipedia is not a place for rumor, but this article is well referenced. Distinction should be made that this refers to the established known falsehoods and not rely to heavily on the use of the phrase "rumor". Done--Amadscientist (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the protester sign from the lead. (I thought I could double up as text in the lead does but I guess not.) Jesanj (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have some comments about the article: The very first sentence makes no sense. The rest of the article is not neutral in tone, that is, too much promotion for HR 3200. The word "reform" is used to beat the reader over the head, even though it refers to a proposed bill. There are three dead URLs. The article is too repetitious about the concept of death panels being false. Once established, the point does not have to be continually repeated. I don't like the two horizontal galleries of influential parties. If they are not major actors such as Palin and Gingrich then their presence is undue weight. Why is there a wikilink to job-killing? Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly, I think I have added literature from high-quality sources, such as medical journals, which just so happen to share the bias that advance planning consultations are good for people (as that's what the data shows). But there is a spot in the Legislation section that I think can be toned down. I'll remove the job-killing wikilink, I thought it might satisfy WP:NEO but after searching it's doubtful. I think the challenge is that the sources cite a variety of problematic statements as being background to "death panels". My opinion on neutrality is that I had to find how reliable sources judged each of those background statements. It just so happens that, in this case, a false political rumor was built upon a lots of different pieces of silly political talk. If reliable sources tell us one "stretched the truth" while another was "unsubstantiated" and yet another was "way out there", I think they need to be characterized so we're neutral, IMO. With pictures, I think Foxx is a good example. Her statement was mentioned by PolitiFact in their year-end summary, Nyhan in his publication, and we have a McClatchy citation. I think a picture of her is deserved. Likewise, I removed another on that same basis. Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I also have concerns about the neutrality of this article. Agree with Bink about the galleries and the caption under the first one is too strong. The first four sentences all use false. It only needs to be mentioned the first time and maybe in the quote, the rest is overkill. Also what is meant by "death panels", I would expect a description of its meaning before anything else. This should be written in a disinterested tone, but I do not get that impression when reading it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I will tone down that beginning portion a bit and I will re-attempt to offer a better definition. (Last time I tried it was incomprehensible.) =) Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely (as I was reading the article, I couldn't have said it better myself actually). Also, sentences like "However, there was "no panel in any version of the health care bills" that judged "a person's 'level of productivity in society' to determine whether they are 'worthy' of health care"[4]—making Palin's charge false.[5]" needs an attribution to it (according to...), and seems like overkill for the lead (you've already said the claim is a false rumor). Ruby 2010/2013 04:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Palin's quote and the other quote should be removed from the lead. But if we attribute in the body, I thought we would present Sarah Palin's idea as on par with PolitiFact and the New York Times in regards to reliability. Don't we only attribute when reliable sources disagree? Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That quote and Palin's were removed from the lead. Jesanj (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. One thing though, I don't think the subject is a matter to speak in general to the neutrality of the article but to whether it should be nominated for deletion. As I said the article needs works and if there is promotional material that needs removing, I didn't use that as judgement for one reason...that what this article is pretty much about about. The known falsehoods of the healthcare care reform law myth "Death Panels". I very much agree with the statements here in comments about the gallery. It seems an attempt to elevate all others next to Palin in the article who is the originating source according to article. Sort of pushing the view that they may have said was as notable notable as Palin's etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of the galleries as a way to show the "team effort" behind getting a big rumor going, similar to the Table 1 in Nyhan's publication: page 9. But yes, I removed Paul Broun from the gallery, because I didn't find any other sources (other than Nyhan) than he played a role. Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have comments on specific issues at this time, but after reading the article I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. In my opinion the article in its current form falls short of the spirit of NPOV (e.g. a reader shouldn't be able to guess where the author stands on issues) and thus does not live up to the standards expected of a good article. One thing that exemplifies the feeling I have is the use of galleries of prominent conservative parrots at the beginning of some sections; it's a perfect example of how this article feels like its written to shame conservatives and to tell the world that the death panels was the greatest orchestrated lie of all times. Or something like that. I make no judgment on intentions, perhaps the author(s) is(are) not aware of their bias(es) Well actually reading the user page of the author focusing solely on the death panels... it's obvious they have an agenda here- CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC). Best regards - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I felt, too. Not NPOV in tone. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is an issue, especially the lead. I have made a bold general edit for clarity, content, neutrality, encyclopedic tone and value and to remove some contentious puffery. The article is about something real. And I don't think it will take a complete overhaul. Just a general copy edit as stated and I do agree the galleries need to be removed. It's elevating all to levels I don't think are due weight. Perhaps the major referenced subjects with an eye for accuracy etc. But I think there is a good article here.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Amadscientist. I'll make a perhaps more specific comment. Why is the article full of active statements such as "falsely", "unsubstantiated", etc? These are characterizations and are not neutral in tone. Compare:

• Bachmann (as had McCaughey) falsely charged Emanuel was a " 'deadly doctor' who believes health care should be 'reserved for the nondisabled' ". (this is the current text, located at the end of 'background').
• Bachmann contended Emanuel was a " 'deadly doctor' who believes health care should be 'reserved for the nondisabled' ".

The latter is far more neutral Done and lets the reader make up his own mind whether the charge was false or not; especially since the sources seem to be selectively chosen for their characterization of the issue. Here's a bunch of other issues I see :

• The piece distorted the meanings of Emanuel's publications on medical ethics. (this is the conclusion of who? - cite the source directly using passive tone)Removed as undue weight to opinion. Done
• Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the then Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, repeated unsubstantiated claims that Section 1233 would encourage euthanasia. (why is the mention necessary in the first place; if necessary, who said it was unsubstantiated - use a passive tone) Done
• On July 28, on the House floor, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) charged, without a legislative basis, that a Republican alternative to the Democratic reform proposals was "pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government." (again a sentence designed to tell the world that the claim was unsubstantiated. Really not necessary, readers can make up their mind) Done
• Gundersen officials were dismayed after Gingrich was critical of Section 1233, which Gundersen helped craft, as Gingrich was satisfied with the end-of-life care his father-in-law received there. (I think this is an example of cherry-picking negative coverage which has only a bare mention in the cited article) Done
• President Barack Obama supported the bill, HR 3200, that had been a target of opponents. (How is this relevant in the paragraph?) Done
• The charge was debunked as false by the St Petersburg Times which stated "no panel in any version of the health care bills" that judged "a person's 'level of productivity in society' to determine whether they are 'worthy' of health care"[3]—making Palin's charge false.[5] (Yeah, no need to say it twice in such a prominent way under a quote clearly designed as a POV device. The sentence at least needs rewriting in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia, this is not a liberal blog) Done
• arguably ending any chance of bipartisanship on the issue, (not sure on the factual accuracy of this statement made by one individual and re-used as fact here) Done
• I'll go through more later... all of the above is from only one of the six content sections.

So long as these issues of tone are not corrected I object to the NPOV pass by Amadscientist, who has otherwise done commendable work here to sanitize this article. Best regards. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I think this is reasonable. I will make all of these changes and tighter general edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional Notes

GA standards are not as tough as FA, but all articles must adhere to certain levels of scrutiny. The article as originally offered for GA listing had a number of issues. There were enough that the subject was somewhat blurred and the focus smothered a bit by what I perceived as a bit of unintentional puffery. More eyes may be needed to address what I may have missed. I decided to be bold and make a number of edits and feel the version we have now is a passable listing level. I will give it a sit for a short while to watch what level of changes begin if any but think it is GA at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some recommended work and a little more for weight and neutrality. This is after cleanup.[1]--Amadscientist (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Went through the other sections, don't like the tone but couldn't point to specifics and didn't want to go through all the sources for verification. As the article was POV by design, it would be nearly impossible to completely fix without a significant rewrite (not to my liking anyway). I'm appalled at the version that was accepted at DYK, but a GA won't land it on the main page, so I guess I'm not too concerned. That said, thanks for all your work, and the current version is indeed far better than the one originally nominated! Maybe others have more to say, but that's it for me. Cheers CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)