Talk:Death panel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

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".✅--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. AIR corn (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: The latter is far more neutral✅ 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 : 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)
 * (this is the current text, located at the end of 'background').
 * (this is the conclusion of who? - cite the source directly using passive tone)Removed as undue weight to opinion.✅
 * (why is the mention necessary in the first place; if necessary, who said it was unsubstantiated - use a passive tone)✅
 * (again a sentence designed to tell the world that the claim was unsubstantiated. Really not necessary, readers can make up their mind)✅
 * (I think this is an example of cherry-picking negative coverage which has only a bare mention in the cited article)✅
 * (How is this relevant in the paragraph?)✅
 * (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)✅
 * (not sure on the factual accuracy of this statement made by one individual and re-used as fact here)✅
 * I'll go through more later... all of the above is from only one of the six content sections.
 * 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.--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)