Wikipedia:Peer review/Death panel/archive2

Death panel
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently delisted as a good article over concerns about prose quality and stability. I'd like to make sure it meets the good article criteria.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Jesanj (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Initial comment: A main problem with this article is the question of its title. I have read the discussion on the talkpage, and find the arguments in favour of retaining this title unconvincing. This is not a neutral title; it was invented by Palin for a purpose, but even she conceded that it was meant figuratively, not realistically. Leaving the title as it is lends credence to the actual existence of such panels. The article is about a political controversy, and should be indicated as such. Either "Death panel" controversy, or even just "Death panel" would avoid misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Should I start a discussion at the talk page and throw out multiple ideas? (I favor myth as I show here: User:Jesanj). Jesanj (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought "Death panel" would be simple/uncontroversial so I moved it there. Jesanj (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm new here in Peer review, so maybe I'm stepping out of order. I'm wondering if this term, used by Palin, deserves a whole article by itself. Shouldn't it be integrated into another article about her campaign stances? It's given too much weight, IMO, in this article. It's just one of her many positions on this and related issues. P   MathewTownsend (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. But I'm not sure what you mean by articles giving themselves too much weight. Perhaps you favor Garber's opinion when she wrote (about Wikipedia) "And, significantly: missing from the discussion is talk of Sarah Palin and her fictional-fantastical 'death panels.' ". Jesanj (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know who Garber is, but her piece, written August 18, 2009, makes sense to me and the Columbia Review of Journalism is a credible source. She is complimenting Wikipedia for not distracting the political discussion on health care with talk of "death panels" and "YouTube-tastic sideshows that the mainstream media—again, both traditional and digital—have found so irresistible in covering the health care debates. Missing,[from Wikipedia] in general, are the frustrating and distracting little dramas that, overall, have taxed attention, promoted misinformation, and stifled true conversation." In other words, she compliments Wikipedia: "Wikipedia provides, essentially, what traditional news outlets, both in print and online, have been trying—with varying degrees of success—to create: a thorough, comprehensive, and vitriol-free examination of the health care conversation. One that defers to information rather than sideshows."
 * Isn't that good? Or am I missing the point? MathewTownsend (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. There are 5 dead links in the citations. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Garber didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Some sideshows become notable, and analyzing them is presenting information (see Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories). Thanks for finding the dead links. Jesanj (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)