Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Death panel/1

Death panel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted The nominator (who was the GA reviewer) suggested that the article had been substantially changed since the GA review. This appears to be supported by the article history and it appears that the article is no longer stable. Other concerns such as prose quality and lack of focus have been expressed. It appears that the only realistic solution would be fpr this article to undergo a thorough peer review to examine sourcing and stability and that to be followed by re-nomination at WP:GAN, if that seems appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am listing this for community reassessment as the original editor who listed it as GA. Unfortunately I passed this after an extensive copy edit from a discussion during the review and the originating author has continued to alter information slowly but surely back to it's original form. At least they were nice enough to warn me...but then I also warned them that GA could be removed by a single editor if needed. Since I listed this as GA I am asking for community reassessment instead of delisting on my own.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a moment to review the references. They lack a good deal of information. Some with no direction to page numbers making it nearly impossible to verify the claims. I mentioned this to the nominating editor who seems more interested in challenging changes than to fix problems that were noted but passed over. Learning experiance for the Listing editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you suggesting isn't verifiable? Consider using {{page needed}} if there is any real need. Jesanj (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I improved the lead and some scattered passages in the body so that the text was more coherent and intelligible to readers who are not fully immersed in the subject. I also removed one questionable source - an article by someone at MIT that asks that it not be used, as it is only a draft. I have some doubts about another source that says it can only be reused with permission. Regarding the second source - a publication by a society of cancer doctors - I removed a long quote which may be objectionable to use without permission. Then I translated the quote into plain English and reviewed the entire article by the medical society so that I could rephrase the main point being made regarding the counseling sessions for cancer patients.

I also found that the lead's summary of Dr. Gawande's statements was inconsistent with how the statements were described in the body of the article. So I made them consistent.

Based upon my brief survey of just a few of the sources -- about half were not fairly represented in the death panel article. So, at this point, I have to say the article needs an extensive amount of work. I will follow up now with some grammar and typo checking, but there is much more to be done, imo, before this can be called a GA.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I decided to write a fuller review after looking at the article further. Hope this is okay and somewhat informative on the problems the article has. I would delist the article. I know the nominator/primary editor has expended enormous effort on the article, and I respect that effort and all evidence of his or her good faith, however, I just don't think the article makes GA standards. Here is my review:

• 1. Writing - The article is not concise. It contains repetition and vague phrasing. For example, instead of saying that Congressmen X, Y and Z supported Palin's claims, it quotes the Congressmen repeating the specific claims. Similarly, it quotes PolitiFact as saying there was no panel then repeats the claim that there was a panel. Vague phrasing includes: "was a precursor to Palin's eventual claim" which begs the question of what was the eventual claim? Repeated references to a "consulation" which can mean several things are examples of vagueness.

• 2. Recentism - The article suffers from excessive recentism - it recites many dates and intricate details of who said what and when and where. (e.g., At an August 12 town hall meeting...Grassley said..." then it quotes a retraction he made soon after and describes his role in the Senate and what his remarks were "a sign of".) Such details are valuable in a daily news report or article, but in my view, they needed to be trimmed out to create an informative encyclopedia article about a term or phrase.KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

— KeptSouth , — (continues after insertion below.)

That's not an example of recentism, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It would not be difficult to pare the article down to a more encyclopedic length and level of detail, while retaining all the basics of the controversy or issue. However, there are indications that the main author (900+ edits) and nominator, Jesanji, would show resistance to such changes, and there has been a history of slow reversions.KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• 2. Coverage - The article seems to give short shrift to some aspects of the debate that were prominently covered by the media and considered consequential at the time - (for example, the angry protests that were sparked by the charges).KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

— KeptSouth , — (continues after insertion below.)

Do you have sources that say "death panels" were central to the protests? Jesanj (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• 3. Digressions - There are many. For example, the history of similar provisions is discussed in detail - giving the impression of Republican inconsistency in supporting earlier similar legislation then opposing them in 2009. Perhaps this would be relevant in an article about the health care legislation itself where it could get full and proper treatment - but this is an article just about the death panel charge.KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

— KeptSouth , — (continues after insertion below.)

I definitely think it is encyclopedic (in line with being comprehensive) to describe the background of section 1233. Jesanj (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• 4. Too many pictures - I wonder whether all the pictures are relevant. Were people pictured in the article all central to the debate on death panels? I believe someone should look at this issue.KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

— KeptSouth , — (continues after insertion below.)

I removed one but I don't think a standard of centrality is necessary. Jesanj (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I will try to make a few more revisions for the sake of making "Death panel" a better article, but do not believe it should be recertified as a GA at this time. --KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article needs to describe what is meant by death panel better. This should be mentioned early in the lead and get a decent write up in the article. Maybe changing the title to "death panel myth" would make it easier to follow. It has improved since my last read through, I tend to agree with KeptSouth and think that this should probably be delisted as it needs a lot of work and renominated when it is ready. AIRcorn (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AIR that a better definition is needed in the lead. I have also found the reaction section to be very disorganized. It contains subsections for "Academic and media" (an odd combination), "Physicians", "Politicians" and "Palin reaction", and a section under the heading "Reaction" which instead of being an intro or summary of the material contained in the subsections per the MOS, appears instead to contain various unsorted opinons. The legislation section is also disorganized and contains repetition. I will be attempting to reorganize these sections and also will be repairing various sentence fragments contained in them.KeptSouth (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. I scanned through the edit history and it appears 90%+ of the edits are from just three editors, two of which are part of this discussion and want the article delisted. There is something very badly wrong with this article but I can't quite put my finger on what that is. I will have another look tomorrow to locate its issues. Szzuk (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have said I was the #3 most frequent editor in my first comment here. Jesanj #1 with 900 eds, one bit the dust - I believe over discussions related to this article, which has and continues to, imo, a minefield. KeptSouth (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It appears from the look of the article history that the GA reviewer had been an active participant in editing the article to gain GA status producing a conflict of interest. That editor has brought the article to the GAR and credit for doing so. I haven't found exactly why this article fails GA yet. I'm still scratching my head a little. Szzuk (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Comment. It fails 3b - focus. Its not that anything that is said is per se OR or directly unhelpful. There is just so much said that what is actually important has been lost. So any reader will be left confused. Lead is also poor. I'd say there are other problems but I stopped looking. Szzuk (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How does it fail focus? What is important that isn't stated? Jesanj (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed the lead to essential points, and I think it is much clearer and focused. However, I think the article as a whole, still does not merit a GA.KeptSouth (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering, how much experience do you have writing and reviewing good articles? How does it fail the good article criteria? Jesanj (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, I know you're quite involved with this article, I just wonder how experienced you are with the good article process. Jesanj (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - an additional reason to delist would be lack of stability - most recently shown on the article TALK page under a section titled "Move?" [1] and in the article history by recent edits mainly for conciseness and sourcing. KeptSouth (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  Discussion on a talk page ≠ article instability. Jesanj (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Delist - Too many issues with this article to remain GA, such as:

• Prose: awkward and choppy prose throughout. Lots of one or two sentence paragraphs, especially in the "Reaction" section, which looks more like a list than anything else. Statements like "Issa issued a factually incorrect statement, which Politifact rated as outrageous..." are troublesome. The article then never states what Issa said, and inserting Politifact in the middle of the sentence seems more a journalistic technique than encyclopedic. Give the Issa statement, then the evaluation by Politifact, and THEN conclude that it was "factually incorrect".
• Images: images are many and awkwardly placed. Try alternating them on the left and right sides so that they don't all stack up in a column. Are all of them necessary? I mentioned Darryl Issa above, who is only mentioned in a very brief passage. Does it add to the article to have his picture there? Ditto on several of the others.

These are just a couple examples. A full review would likely reveal more. My recommendation is to delist until improvements are made pending an independent peer review. I'm troubled by the claim above that a copy edit was made which led to the original GA, and which was subsequently dismantled by the article's editors. AstroCog (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the one or two sentence paragraphs are a recent result from the cleanup by KeptSouth, who has commented here. It was Gingrey that issued the factually inaccurate statement; how is saying so troublesome? (I'll remove his picture though.) That's what the sources say. Do you think they are unreliable for this statement? Why should the article delve into why it was false anyways? It was a relatively minor example of the "death panel" narrative. Jesanj (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the one or two sentence paragraphs. Jesanj (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How is the prose not clear and concise? That's what the good article criteria asks for. Jesanj (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. (I am the primary contributor to this article.) I'm not sure a rationale for delisting has been demonstrated. What criteria, exactly, does the article fail and why? Jesanj (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.