Wikipedia:Peer review/And the Band Played On/archive1

And the Band Played On
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for GA, but since I have not written a non-fiction book article, I am unsure about some of the issues involved in these articles. I would appreciate any feedback provided. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I recently tackled a non-fiction book (in the middle of an FAC with it). You may want to browse the comments on it at Peer review/The World Without Us/archive1 and at its FAC. Some comments on this article:
 * I'd be hesitate to put quotations in the lead section - should stay with a general overview/summary. Quotes are specific.
 * The "Subject" section uses a non-standard structure with the open sentence "...who were dying:" followed by the sub-sections. I admire the unique thinking there, but don't be shocked if someone objects to it. The structure used at The World Without Us uses a "Background" for the book/author's origin and sources, a "Synopsis" for spelling out the contents, and a "Genre" section for relating its approach to the general genre - in And the Band Played On's case 'investigative journalism' or 'science/medical books'.
 * The "Subject" section may be too detailed about the book's contents. It sometimes (not always) takes the historical tone that would be expected in the HIV/AIDS in the United States article, rather than an article about a book.
 * Watch out for puncuation in quotes. See WP:PUNC or examples at User talk:BillDeanCarter. An example from this article: ...made Shilts an "AIDS celebrity." - should be ...made Shilts an "AIDS celebrity".
 * Be a more specific with "It remained on the New York Times Bestseller List for five weeks" - what did it peak at?
 * The part on "...have been compared to Shilts' book as a standard." left me a bit confused: standard in terms of what? Research? Writing quality? Dramatics? Popularity?
 * There is good coverage of newpaper reviews, but you may also want to include the response from some science/academic journals such as The Journal of Social History (Winter89), the British Journal of Addiction (Sep88), Annals of Internal Medicine (May88), and American Journal of Law & Medicine (Vol. 12 Issue 3/4). --maclean 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Maclean25. At this time, I don't intend to nominate it for FA. I had some questions about citing for a nonfiction book, but I think those have been answered. (I think...) --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)