Talk:Organ transplantation in China/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to place this article on hold to allow time for the below issues to be addressed. I am watching this review page, so please respond below. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• Be consistent in using American or British English
• "In the 1990s, growing concerns about possible ethical abuses arising from coerced consent and corruption led medical groups and human rights organizations to start condemning the practice in the 1990s" - no need to repeat 1990s
• "the Chinese Medical Association agreed not to use the organs of prisoners for transplantation, except for members of their immediate family" - please tell me "their" refers to the prisoners and not the CMA!
• Spell out or link MP on first occurrence
• Should include a few more internal links. I'm surprised that Organ donation wasn't linked as a matter of course. Other likely links include hepatitis, Amnesty International, etc
• "In China, organ transplantation began in the 1960s, which grew to a peak of over 13,000 transplants a year by 2004" - grammar. Also, transplants peaked in 2004
• "development of immuno-supressant drug, cyclosporine A, made transplants a more viable option for patients since the 1970s" - grammar
• "condemned taking organs from executed prisoners as it was not known if they had given consent to the use of their organs" - reword for clarity
• What is WHA44.25?
• Check use of semi-colons
• "assisted Wang to give" -> "assisted Wang in giving"?
• "was cite by ET" - grammar
• "argued that the hospital was incapable of housing 6,000 persons" - okay, but what does that have to do with anything?
• The mini-paragraph at the start of the Falun Gong section should be reworked and moved to the start of the report subsection
• Don't abbreviate their names as "K&M"; do so for the report title only if the sources do so
• "US dollar price lists various vital organs such as kidneys and hearts" - grammar
• "Chinese authorities to adequately respond... and an explanation" - grammar
• "holocaust" should be capitalized
• Minimize the number of one-sentence paragraphs
• Kilgour-Matas report or Kilgour Matas Report?
• "which stipulated that medical centres must meet for transplant services" - missing word?
• "In March, 2006, the Ministry of Health issued the Interim Provisions on Clinical Application and Management of Human Organ Transplantation, which stipulated that medical centres must meet for transplant services; the provinces were made responsible for plans for clinical applications. Establishments performing transplantation are thereby obliged to incorporate ethics, medical and surgical expertise, and intensive care" - I'm not sure I follow the progression here, could you clarify?
• "to restrict transplantations from donors to their immediate relatives" - all donors, or prisoners?
• The human rights article is linked in the text and thus shouldn't be in See also
  • I think that Ohconfucius has dealt with these matters. Please let me know if any have been missed. I comment on WHA44.25 below. SilkTork *^YES! 11:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a couple of points: check "ise" vs "ize" (and derivatives - for example, is the WHO an organisation or an organization?). Second, I would suggest reading it over and doing some general copy-editing - there are other issues with grammar and clarity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • As I have set all spellings to British variant, it would be an 'organisation. OTOH, the official name is spelt with a 'z'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • British spelling accepts both ise and ize, so other than proper names such as WHO, either can be used used in this article. I'll scan through for other issues with grammar and clarity - though if they are mine I am likely to miss them! I hope to pick up other people's errors, and that Ohconfucius will pick up mine! SilkTork *^YES! 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• See here for a list of problematic links
• Use a consistent formatting for references
• Include retrieval dates for all web sources
• Include publisher for all sources
• Include page numbers for multi-page documents, journals, and newspapers (where applicable)
• Address unreliable-source tag
• When I try to load canadianchristianity.com, my anti-virus software sends up a warning about it being an "attack page"

• • Would you look at Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and separate your concerns related to GA criteria, and your general guidance for ongoing development of the article. It may, however, be worth waiting until the Falun Gong section is dealt with, as I feel that some of your concerns may be dealt with at the same time. SilkTork *^YES! 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I have struck three points. Note also that I'm not asking that the problematic links be removed, simply that you check to see if the issues can be addressed. If they cannot, then say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have gone through the cites and removed or replaced dead or unreliable links. canadianchristianity.com loads OK on FireFox which is generally good at notifying attack sites. SilkTork *^YES! 23:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Broad

• Need more emphasis on what here is termed "Background". Are there any breakdowns of donation/transplant counts by organ? Which hospitals are equipped to perform these procedures? Any particularly well-known for transplantation surgery? Why is organ donation so contrary to Chinese culture (just a sentence needed to explain)? Also, the section should be split or renamed, as most of it deals with the 2000s, not "1960s-1984"
  • Will look into this. SilkTork *^YES! 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Have made some adjustments. I am concerned about going too far though. The main notability of China's transplant programme is the organ harvesting and trade, so that has to be both the bulk and focus of the article; however to ensure balance, context neutrality, and broad coverage I have included some background detail. There is, however, a danger of downplaying the harvesting and trading if one goes too much into the other aspects. There has to be a balance, but that balance mustn't obscure what was in effect a very disturbing practise. And this article isn't about organ transplantation in general. The notability in China's programme is not the everyday transplanting, but the exceptional aspects of it. I'll be advised by you if you feel that coverage of other aspects is, though, still too little. Ensuring neutral balance isn't always easy. The face transplanting might be seen by some people as a smoke screen, so care has to be taken! SilkTork *^YES! 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Understood. I think what is present now is probably sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Conversely, the section on Falun Gong should be shortened or spun off. I realize it's an important consideration, but it shouldn't be given more weight than the two International sections combined
  • Ah! I've been working through these points backwards, and I have commented on this below. Yes, I agree that the section on Falun Gong is too long. I will consult with Dilip rajeev, Jayen466 and Ohconfucius on splitting that section out per WP:Summary style into a new article to be called Kilgour-Matas report. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have already reduced the length of that section considerably, whilst preserving the essence. Let me know if it is still overweight. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It's probably good enough now. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Does this article include the issue of tissue transplantation? It's mentioned in the lead, but not anywhere else
  • I have removed tissue from the lead. Organ transplantation by implication includes tissue so there is no need to highlight it. I don't think there is one common word which covers both organs and tissue, so "organ transplantation" generally covers everything. I think "organ and tissue" was used in the lead so readers would understand that "organ transplantation" does involve both organs and tissue, but if you feel it sets up an expectation that is not delivered, then it is better removed. And the article and operational practise does focus on the organs rather than tissue anyway. SilkTork *^YES! 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Make sure you distinguish between "acknowledged" and "not denied"
  • There is one instance I can find of "acknowledged", and that accords precisely with the source, and is about trading in organs. The use of "not denied" is in taking organs from prisoners. They are related but different. One is the operation to remove organs from prisoners. The other is trading those organs on the international market. China denied they were involved in illegal trading, though did not deny they took organs from prisoners. They eventually acknowledged they not only took organs from prisoners, but also then sold those organs. I have reworded the lead to, hopefully, make this clearer. Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 11:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Since this is a controversial topic, be very careful about WP:W2W, WP:ASF, and WP:UNDUE
  • The reason I am involved is because of the controversy surrounding this and related Falun Gong articles - see Talk:Falun Gong/Moderated discussion. However I am not the only editor, and I don't check every edit. If there are any aspects or phrases that you feel are suspect, please indicate them so we can discuss it more fully. One of the concerns is that the Falun Gong allegation takes up a disproportionate amount of space, and should be split out per WP:Summary style into a separate article on the Kilgour-Matas report. The history of this article, however, is that any attempts to do that have been reverted. An experienced GA reviewer giving an impartial assessment of the article and reaching a decision either way regarding 3 (b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" would be helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 11:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The total wordcount without the lede section is 2689. The Falun Gong section is currently at 1053 words – I lopped 20% off. It's probably in balance now. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Stability

No problems noted

Images

• A lead image would be great if you can find one - not a big problem, though
  • Moved up the graph that Ohconfucius made as that is fairly neutral. previously there were no suitable neutral images - using a Falun Gong related image would have weighted the article. SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with that. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• The caption for the graph says "liver and heart transplants", while the graph itself specifies liver and kidney
  • Ohconfucius has fixed that. SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• The Falun Gong image has a poster about "genocide camps" - are these the same as the "concentration camps" discussed in article text?
  • I assume so. SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's what Falun Gong are drumming on about. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Caption for Kilgour image contradicts image description page - which is correct?
  • Ohconfucius must have fixed that as I see no inconsistency. SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not touch it, as I saw no inconsistency either. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Was his title "Secretary of State" or "Secretary for Asia and the Pacific"? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I've tidied the caption. He was both, but I've put it into the form that seems the one most used. SilkTork *^YES! 15:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Response

• I have dealt with most of the points raised under writing and formatting, and some of the others. Thanks! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I didn't notice that a review was under way. I'll take a look at the points raised. Thanks for doing the review. SilkTork *^YES! 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• WHA44.25 is an international guideline on human organ transplants. I think originally I placed it in brackets, but these were removed in subsequent edits - I have restored the brackets. Let me know if you think that makes it clearer. SilkTork *^YES! 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's better. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think all the points have been addressed. Let us know if there's anything else. And thanks again for taking on this task. Not the most pleasant or easiest of articles to work through. I fully understand why it was left for so long on the GAN pile. You have done a thorough and admirable job. SilkTork *^YES!