Talk:Frances Oldham Kelsey/GA1

Frances Oldham Kelsey GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has undergone a reassessment as part of the GA sweeps performed by the Good Article Project Quality taskforce in order to ensure that it still meets the requirements for Good Article status.

The article is well-written and easy to follow. My concerns are:


 * 1) "Despite Geiling assuming that Frances was a man,[3] she accepted the position and began working for Geiling." - This is confusing. Was Frances less likely to accept the position because of the confusion?
 * 2) In the "Work at the FDA and thalidomide" section, it would be nice if a brief explanation of what thalidomide was used for could be included, as much of the article revolves around the drug.
 * 3) Likewise, what is the "Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962"? Is it just the "drug testing reforms"? If so, the following sentence would read better as "These drug testing reforms..."
 * 4) Section formatting. I think the "Continued work at the FDA" heading should be removed altogether. The first paragraph works better as part of the previous section. The second paragraph would work better in the "Legacy" section.
 * 5) A reference for the school being named after her is needed.
 * 6) The first two items in the "See also" section are already in the prose and should be removed from the "See also" list.
 * 7) The biggest problem with this article is its verifiability. Page numbers are needed for the print sources. Without page numbers, the references are not much use for someone wanting to verify the facts or use this article as a guideline for further research.
 * 8) Reference 15 is a bare url and needs more information (title, publisher, and access date; author's name and publication date if available)
 * 9) Could a "Further reading" section be added with some relevant books or reliable websites that aren't already used in the article? This isn't necessary for GA status, but it would be helpful to readers.

I will place this reassessment on hold for seven days to allow for improvements to be made. If these concerns can be addressed within this timeframe, the article will remain listed as a Good Article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to address the items above in the article; however, even if none of them were addressed I don't think that the article would fail the GA criteria. -- Trödel 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apparently wasn't fully awake when I was doing the review. The sources I mentioned above are all online, so there is no need for page numbers. There are a few dead links (see ). I'll see what I can do about updating them with archived versions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, updating the links was easier than I thought it would be. I also added the missing citation and the information for another citation. It's just a little bit of copyediting left now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the links - I'll address the remainder of the items later tonight - there are some additional things I'd like to include in the article and I'm thinking I should try to include those as well when making the changes you suggest. -- Trödel 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence on the gender confusion. The note clarifies the differences. I also addressed the other issues listed above. I included a Further reading section with references that were on the talk page. Let me know if additional changes are suggested -- Trödel 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You should check out Protecting America's Health by Philip J. Hilts. He has a good descripton of the incident at FDA. You can read some online through google books here -. I would recommend trying to incorporate this information into the article. Remember (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the article now meets the Good Article standards, so I a closing this reassessment as keep. My suggestions for future improvements would be: (1) a longer lead section that summarizes the full article, and (2) perhaps reorganizing the "Legacy and awards" section so that the bullet list comes after the section's prose rather than in the middle of it. These shouldn't prevent it from GA status, though. Great job on the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will look at Hilts article. I have wanted to expand this article some with criticisms of Kelsey but have never got around to it. -- Trödel 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)