Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA3

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've done an initial read of the first part the article, but I've not checked any references, and I've fixed a few "minor problems" on the way (I'll say more on this below and later).

Overall, the article appears to be at or about GA level, but I suspect that some work will be needed in places to bring it up to the standard of WP:WIAGA. For example: on the basis of my quick read, there appears to be information in the WP:Lead that does not seem to be in the article and the opposite case (information in the article that is not summarised in the lead). There also seems to be some "strange system" of wikilinking - terms such as apartment and firefighter that don't seem all that important to the context of this article were wikilinked (I've taken these two links out); some medical term were not wikilinked and some technical terms seemed to be be wikilinked at every occurrence (even in the same section - WP:OVERLINKING).

I'm now going to work my way through the article: starting at the Background section, working my way down the the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. This may take a day or so (well at least the rest of today and tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Background -
 * Reference 5 and 8 are the same - well ref 8 has an accessed date but 5 does not.
 * Fixed Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Initial medical assessments -
 * The final paragraph is unreferenced.
 * Ref added Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rehabilitation efforts – 1990-1993 -
 * Much of the information claimed in the first paragraph is not verifiable using the two references cited, i.e. (potentially) non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 2.
 * Ref 13 is SABAL PALMS HEALTH CARE CENTER so it can't be used to confirm the University of California, San Francisco treatment and ref 14 gives ROUGH TIMELINE AND DECISIONS, i.e. "November 1990…	Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies", so that does not verify the claims. The information given in this first paragraph does appear in ref 17, but ref 17 is not being cited in this paragraph as verification.
 * fixed, ref now to what was ref 17 (now 14) Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The same paragraph contains a direct quotation: "her to parks and public places in hopes of sparking some recovery." which is unreferenced.
 * Quotation removed Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 15 is a "dead link", but I suspect that it is the same as ref 7 (which is not dead). Note: ref 15 "calls" the paper without specifying page numbers whereas ref 7 calls three pages from the report.
 * fixed Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that another subsection is needed in the Background section. The last subsection is entitled Rehabilitation efforts – 1990-1993 and most of it is about that topic, but the last but one paragraph has (almost an afterthought) a note about a 2003 demand from the Schindlers; and the last paragraph is about legal guardianship and the relationship between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. The next section which follows straight afterwards is called Legal cases 1998-2002. I think that these three subtopics aught to be be moved out into a new final subsection. It could be called Guardianship, but I don't have any firm views on what it should be called.
 * ✅ (but see comments two points below). Pyrotec (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I make some comments below about "possible" divorce. It is this possible event that causes a potential conflict of interest to both the spouse and the parents, and has to be taken into consideration during the various legal processes. In the source material its all together, but in the article its fragmented and some of it (divorce) is not stated specifically, but it can be inferred (provided that you have read the sources). Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did anything happen between 1993 and 1998, this period is just ignored?
 * Nothing of much significance in that time. Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relationship between Terri's husband and parents -
 * This is a new sub-subsection added to the article, I assume in response to my comments above (Guardianship), but I'm not sure that I understand the new reference 13. Barbara Parenti, Chief Justice, is presumably considered by someone to be important as half of reference 13 and also half of ref 45, used later, leads to a web page which gives her history of her legal career to date. However, neither or name nor career seems to have anything to do with this topic, neither is she mentioned name in the article, other than twice in these two references. (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant link is at the end of the citation, and leads to a .pdf of the Fla Supreme court decision, which contains the relevant information. The link to Justice Parenti's bio is just there in case someone wanted more info on who wrote the opinion. Ace-o-aces (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I consider that the rest of this paragraph needs a citation. I have seen at least one citation used elsewhere in the article that does confirm these points, but at this point of the review I can't remember which one (I thought it was one of detailed court summarise, but I've not yet found it). Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unreferenced claim as it is contentious. Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Legal cases 1998-2002 -
 * Petition to remove feeding tube -
 * Ref 21 leads to a Florida State web archive which states: "The statute you have selected cannot be found. ".
 * Corrected URL and eliminated duplicate citation in same sentence. Ace-o-aces (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph does not fully explain the concerns of Pearse in ref 20. There is no mention here of a "possible" divorce and what that would mean: what Pearse explains is that in the event of the death of Terri Schiavo the monies would either go to Schiavo or the parents depending on whether Pearse remains married, or not, to Terri. Note this is a link back in the source to my final comments in Rehabilitation efforts – 1990-1993 that the article does not explain here, but it is discussed later in the Oral feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge subsection.
 * Fixed, I think (I was a bit unclear on your problem with this paragraph). Ace-o-aces (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, its fine now. Thanks. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Schiavo I: end-of-life wishes -
 * Looks OK.


 * Oral feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge -
 * Ref 26 is a 39-page report, so the relevant page number (or numbers) should be given in the citation.
 * Fixed (page 34) Ace-o-aces (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise OK.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Schiavo II -
 * Ref 28 is a dead link - it gives a 404 error.
 * Corrected URL. (You know, all the broken links came from the Florida state goverment. Make of that what you will). Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, OK.


 * Schiavo III & IV: PVS diagnosis challenge -
 * This subsection looks OK.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Terri's Law and other government delays -
 * Looks OK.


 * Final feeding tube removal and federal involvement -
 * Looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Early 2005 motions -
 * This subsection looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Palm Sunday Compromise -
 * The first paragraph is unreferenced.
 * The third, single-sentence paragraph: "As in the state courts, all of the Schindlers' federal petitions.... ", is also unreferenced. It aught to have a referenced and I would suggest that the final paragraph is appended to it, the two seems to naturally "flow together".
 * Otherwise, OK. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Final local motions, death and autopsy & Public opinion and activism -
 * These two sections look OK.


 * WP:lead -
 * At the start of the review it appeared that the lead was not fully compliant with Introductory text. Having worked my way through the article is some depth and then gone back to the Lead, I now consider that it looks to be OK.

At this stage there are a few minor "problems" that need to be addressed before I can award GA, so I'm putting this review On Hold to give time for these to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've covered all the "problems". Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit war
Looking at the edit history here there appears to be some indication of an edit war going on with you and Psalm84, but I might be mistaken. If there is found to be an edit war, I'm entitled to fail the nomination under WP:WIAGA clause 5. Having got this far I'd rather not use clause 5 and fail it, however there is clearly new material in the article: the Medicolegal issues section is new and the Public opinion and activism section has been expanded. Consequently, these two sections and the WP:Lead are going to have to be reviewed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a war. The ongoing discussion has been civil. Psalm84's concern is about adding context and my main concern is keeping the article focused. I feel we've come to a mutual understanding. Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it, but I will still need to review the new material and also consider whether the lead adequately covers it. P.S. I've just come back after five days off, so I'm trying to close Talk:Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/GA1 so I can spend more time of my time on this review, but I've also got some other threads going, so closing this review (as a Pass) is taking longer than I would like it to take. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Medicolegal issues -
 * Right-to-die -
 * The first sentence starts off: The Schiavo case is cited as one of three highly influential right-to-die cases, along with those of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan.[62] and is then followed by summary of all three cases and an explanation of why/how Schiavo was different. I can follow those discussion, but there is an unasked question, 'cited by who/whom that does not appear to be answered.
 * I'm going to look closely at some more refs that also discuss all three cases. Probably a better sentence will come from that. Psalm84 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 20 appears to be used as verification of the whole of the third paragraph. It certainly provides verification of what is stated about Estelle Browning, but I'm not so sure that it provides verification of the claim: The outcome of the Schiavo case was also determined by a 1990 Florida case, Guardianship of Estelle Browning.. There are probably better references for such a claim, assuming that it is correct, which are being used elsewhere in the article.
 * It is verification for the whole paragraph, for the time being. I'm sure I'd be able to find some better references for it, though, with some time. There is a PubMed abstract that mentions the Browning case as a legal basis for the Schiavo case. Looking for more sources is something I want to do, but the additions I've made lately involved a lot of work, so things aren't as polished yet as I'd like them be. Psalm84 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The abstract looks interesting. The "problem" is that I'm not likely to be awarding this article GA-status until these things are fixed, and ideally they are fixed in the nest week. Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Disability rights -
 * This subsection seems to be quite vague in some of its statements and it also seems to be rehashing material already covered in the article but so as to give "credit (or bias?)" to a different set/group of people. For instance, it writes about: ... disability rights groups advocated for the law passed by Congress that forced a federal court to review the case ... as if its unsure what law it is discussing; and it also uses the phrase: When Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the final time in March, 2005, disability rights groups ... I don't have a HighBeam subscription so I can't check whether this vagueness is present in the original reference or just here. There is more detail about the process and a firm date of 18th March in the earlier Palm Sunday Compromise subsection. I would suggest that the Palm Sunday Compromise be considered jointly Disability rights to see if there are biases and duplications that can be addressed.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Public opinion and activism -
 * Looks OK.


 * Developments since Schiavo's death -
 * I was having trouble working out what ref 79 was/is. It appears to be have been mis-referenced. Its currently cite web|last=Lytle|first=Tamara|title=Schiavo turns rage into TerriPAC|url=Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services|publisher=Orlando Sentinel|date=December 8, 2005. The publisher Orlando Sentinel suggests that it might be a newspaper or journal article, but then there is an "internet address" address of Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which could be a publisher, but what and who's department, Orlando, Florida?
 * I have fixed that reference. I have no idea how I apparently didn't copy the URL right. The other comments you've made about the additions and changes to the article I'm looking at and will respond about them when I can. Psalm84 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 79. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 80 strictly only provides verification of the sentence that it is attached to: i.e. that Michael Schiavo shut down PAC. The previous sentence In 2007, TerriPAC paid a $1350 fine to Federal Election Commission for failing to file complete and timely records. is unreferenced.
 * I've also fixed that reference. A link to the source I found through Google brought up a dead link, but the same source was already in the article, and I forgot to go back to it for the working link. Sorry about that. Psalm84 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * The lead mostly covers the expanded article in the it discusses the legal struggle from 1998 to 2005, what happened physically and legally, and the "problems" between the spouse and the parents (to simplify it somewhat). However a very minor expansion is needed. I'm not looking for too much in the way of additional summary, as WP:MOSINTRO imposes considerations of Relative emphasis:
 * The new additions takes the "story" beyond 2005: since both sides went "fund raising"; set up organisation which were used to help other people in "similar situations"; and have put "their side of the story" into print in books.
 * I'm waiting for some clarification (see Medicolegal issues), but there are, it seems, Right to die considerations that need to be summarised and added to the Lead.

I've already put this review On Hold on 18th November for one week, so I'm going to "reset the clock" and consider that the "hold" has started from today.

At this point, I'm basically awaiting some clarifications; some reconsideration of the material in Palm Sunday Compromise together with the material in Disability rights sections, and is the balance OK?; and, some citations. These "actions" appear to be relatively minor (I can't comment about the work need to find citations, as I have no expertise in US sources), so I would hope to be able to grant this article GA-status in early December (that's Saturday, at the earliest). Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but something came up so that I had to interrupt working on the article and its problems. Anyway, I did look to everything to some degree, except for the Disability Rights section. Looking back on what you wrote about it, I wasn't entirely sure about all of your comments. I will quickly tighten up a couple of the phrases. That seems quickly fixable. On the matter of bias, I'm not quite sure if I get what you're talking about, but if your concern was the mentioning of Democratic cooperation needed for the Palm Sunday compromise, that is well-established by many sources at the time. There are many comments by Harkin, a well-known backer of disability rights, supporting the Schiavo measure and some federal review for cases where there's dispute over a person's wishes. His office said even after Schiavo's death that he was working on such legislation and considered it important. And at the time the controversy was happening, and right after, there were other Democrats who also expressed the same concern. The Palm Sunday compromise should clearly reflect that while it was pushed by the GOP, it also had the support of many Democrats, mostly from a disability rights perspective, while there were also other Democrats who criticized it (it seems primarily some House members, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz). That should be reflected in this article, as well as the separate articles having to do with that bill. Here's just one source on this:


 * On Sunday, lawmakers of both parties agreed that Congress has a role to play in such cases and should contemplate legislation that would give added legal recourse to patients like Ms. Schiavo. While it is difficult to predict whether such a measure could pass, the Schiavo case has clearly pushed thorny questions about end-of-life care to the fore on Capitol Hill, as well as in state legislatures around the nation.


 * Now some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether such a law is needed.


 * "I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who opposed Congressional action in the Schiavo case. Mr. Frank was speaking on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Mr. Frank added: "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."


 * The question of Ms. Schiavo, who has lingered in what doctors describe as a "persistent vegetative state" for 15 years, has been characterized by the news media and politicians as a "right to life issue," fueled by Christian conservatives and opponents of abortion. But advocates for the disabled are also playing a strong role, enlisting Democratic lawmakers like Mr. Harkin.


 * "Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues," The NY Times, 3/28/05

Let me put the point another way. In the Final feeding tube removal and federal involvement section there is a subsection Palm Sunday Compromise and in the Medicolegal issues section there is a subsection Disability rights half of which, the second paragraph, is almost a repeat of what is in Palm Sunday Compromise. Both state that the Republicans initiated it, and "names names"; one has it a means of attacking an named Democrat Senator the other has the use of a named Democrat to ease its passage. I don't see why some, but not all, of the new material added during the review is needed when it duplicates existing material. Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I went back through and moved some of Palm Sunday Compromise information that was in Disability Rights to the PSC section. There's still more that I see needs to be done in different places in the article, including the PSC section, but just what I've done so far to address different shortcomings has been time-consuming, and it just takes time to polish things, too. One other issue I also see with the PSC section is that except for the info I added it's unsourced. Probably most of the information can be sourced from the PSC article, but that will likely take some time to do, too. And looking at some of it, I'm not quite sure it's that accurate. It could use a close look, too. Psalm84 (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've had another look at it and I've asked for the two unreferenced paragraphs to be referenced; and the third and four paragraphs to be merged. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * There are two images that have copyright claims, the second one, the brain scans, does not have full justification for its use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * There are two images that have copyright claims, the second one, the brain scans, does not have full justification for its use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

In part due to the length of time it has taken to get this far, I'm awarding this article GA-status. The use of the brain scans image needs to be urgently addressed, and if the problems can't be addressed it will need to be removed from the article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work everybody! Now let's get this thing to featured status! (Maybe after a little break) Ace-o-aces (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)