Wikipedia:Peer review/Médecins Sans Frontières/archive1

Médecins Sans Frontières
I believe I've done the first three steps for making a featured article, so now it's time for peer review.

My comments:
 * I'd like to keep the history section in the main article, even though it's somewhat large, because I don't people to have to leave the page Well, I've noticed that a lot of articles have their history in a separate article, but I think MSF needs the history in the main article
 * I've had comments about the number of references that are available online...I don't like it either, especially since the MSF.org site construction seems to be very...unstable. Unfortunately, there aren't that many books about MSF (in English), and emails to MSF about obtaining more sources went unanswered.

Other than that, what do others think of it? --CDN99 19:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some images would be nice --WS 03:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, this is a great article. Very well sourced, good prose, very few grammar or spelling issues, etc. For minor rewordings that I thought would be appropriate, I went ahead and just made the changes. If you think any of my changes were mistakes, just let me know.

Now there are some ways I think the article could be improved, to help it get to featured status. I've analyzed only through "Ongoing missions". I'll post more later. Again, this is a terrific article, and I'm saving up my lunch money for when it gets featured. :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (numbered issues--CDN99 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 1) First off, WS is right: more pictures would help enourmously. They may be difficult to find, but they could really bring the article to life. Some possibilies from other article include Image:Skulls from the killing fields.jpg, Image:Vietnamkrieg Bootsflüchtling 1980.jpg, Image:7042 lores-Ebola-Zaire-CDC Photo.jpg, Image:Carlo urbani.gif, Image:Identified Victims.jpg, and Image:Srebfootage.PNG, although not all of them may be appropriate.
 * 2) About moving the history to another page, I agree that it would probably be better to keep the article together. If you wanted to move it out, you could still include a history section (about half as long) with a mainarticle header thing. But I don't think it's really necessary.
 * 3) The history section could be organized better. I would recommend a header paragraph, briefly summarizing the entire history, at the top of the section, much like the paragraph at the top of the "Field mission structure" section. Then the part at the top about the Red Cross should be a subsection, perhaps called "Predecessors". (Although then it should include more than just the ICRC. Are there any other historical organizations with similar goals?)
 * 4) About the Red Cross, it says "one could view. . .". That's accurate, but it's a so-called "weasel word". It would be better to say "However, some have criticized this consistent neutrality. . .", and include a footnote that says "For example, see X-reference and Y-reference".
 * 5) I personally agree that the Nigerian policy toward Biafra was an unconscienceable, genocidal policy consisting of frequent massacres and atrocities. However, we have to be careful about NPOV. Most of the section is admirably NPOV, but a few sections strike me as borderline: "deliberate starvation and slaughter", and "Kouchner witnessed these atrocities". I'm not sure what to do about the above. Do they need to be reworded, and if so, how? But it's worth looking at.
 * 6) Now the term "genocide" is a special case. On the one hand, it's emotionally charged and can be seen as taking sides. On the other hand, it's a word with a specific meaning, and no other term can easily be substituted. The Biafra incident is referred to as a genocide, and I don't know whether that's appropriate or not (although I personally think that's an accurate term for the situation). The killing fields of the Khmer Rouge are referred to as "genocide"; I agree, but neither the Khmer Rouge article nor The Killing Fields article uses the term, I don't believe. The Bosnian Genocide may be different, since that's the name of the article, the UN did call what happened a genocide, and that's the most common term for the event. And the Rwandan Genocide article uses the term constantly. Again, I'm not sure I know the answer, but I'm raising the question.
 * 7) You translate most French terms in the article, but "Groupe d’Intervention Médicale et Chirurgicale d’Urgence" and "Sécours Médical Français" are mentioned without translation. What do they mean?
 * 8) Should "Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief Programmes" be italicized? Quoted? Linked? It's quite a mouthful. Should it have its own article?
 * 9) The "ongoing missions" section is strikingly short compared to the history section. Is more information available about where MSF is right now and what they're doing?


 * 1. I've added two pictures (one in Biafra, other in Darfur). The Ebola, "ID'd victims" and "sreb footage" images may be appropriate, I'll add them and look for more this weekend.  I'm going to try not to put in too many pictures of starving children, or else it may turn out sappy.
 * 3. That does sound good...I'll try to do something to that effect this weekend.
 * 4. added "...some, like Kouchner...", and this is expanded on in the next section.
 * 5. changed a couple words "deliberate starvation/slaughter" --> "conditions" and "atrocities" --> "events" make them more neutral I think
 * 6. changed reference of genocide by Khmer Rouge to "executions" instead (that's the term given in The killing Fields)
 * Good. . . but the phrase "survivors of the executions" sounds a little contradictory. Quadell 16:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7. translated; GIMCU was described as "awkwardly named" in French so I translated it as "Group for Urgent Medical and Surgical Intervention," which seems sufficiently awkward for English.
 * 8. The Code...for...Programmes was italicised, and it's linked to in the references. Should it link to the IFRC website directly from the text?
 * No, that would be bad form. The way it is now is great. Quadell 16:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9. Ongoing missions; well, there's almost too much information for this section, I'm just trying to determine which missions are the most significant and should be put in. I'll try to add more this weekend (I'm at work now); --CDN99 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

An additional comment: It seems to me that Therapeutic Feeding Centre should be its own article, with that content moved out and just summarized. Does this sound like a good idea? We may also want separate articles on Oral Rehydration Solution, F-75, F-100, and Plumpy'Nut (I love that name!). Do you have any more info on those? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Plumpy'nut already has an article.--nixie 13:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So does oral rehydration solution --WS 14:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! The Plumpy'nut article is very good, but the ORS article should probably mention MSF. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Therapeutic Feeding Centre may be a good idea, although it probably won't be very long. I just added "ongoing" information to the article, which is somewhat large now.. Is it absolutely necessary to move the History section to its own article?
 * For some reason I can't open those photos on the computer I'm using now, but I found some aerial photos of refugee camps here. Would those aerial photos be appropriate? --CDN99 17:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think that moving out the history section is necessary. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I have to agree with a previous comment from another reviewer - this is already a great article. Now for some comments and thoughts. First, I think the first sentence of the history section "Organisations for the protection of human rights..." is partly misleading. Strictly speaking, human rights are of only secondary concern for most of the organizations which are listed there. Most of them "only" provide basic humanitarian aid, which means they try to protect human life and health, alleviate human suffering and protect a minimum level of human dignity. There are other organizations like AI which care primarily about human rights. So I think the sentence should be reworded accordingly. Next point, I don't like the term "gag order" regarding the rules of engagement of the Red Cross. Maybe a rewording to "...seen by some as being similar to a gag order..." might be more appropriate. Then it should perhaps be mentioned that France openly supported Biafra, and so the ICRC was already at odds with the French Red Cross (and the Swedish Red Cross as well, for that matter) over disputes regarding neutrality. Another interesting fact is that Biafra was like a modern Solferino for Kouchner. Next point: the sentence In 1982, Malhuret and Rony Brauman (who would become the organisation's president in 1982), brought financial independence to MSF and introduced fundraising-by-mail to better collect donations. leaves the question open how they did it. Did they have good connections to wealthy donors? Did they provide financial support from their own pockets? Maybe it should be more clear. What I miss somehow are some more general information about the organization. What are the approximate numbers of both volunteer and permanently employed staff? How is the organization organized, from a legal and structural point of view? How is the leadership organized, apart from the position of the president? What's their annual budget, and how do they raise their money? I will provide some of the information on your talk page but I'll leave it up to you to add it to the article, to preserve its structure and consistency. All in all, a great article already as said before. Best Regards, --Uwe 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added to the article with respect to all of Uwe's comments and information. I changed the phrase "survivors of the executions" to "survivors of the mass killings," but I can't think of a better way to reword that.  I added a few more photos, though there's still some candidates to possibly add.  --CDN99 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's featured quality at this point. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I submitted it for FAC at Featured_article_candidates. --CDN99 18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)