Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive1

Terri Schiavo
Many users have been working very hard in an effort to make this a solid, comprehensive, NPOV encyclopedia article&mdash;not an easy task, given the intense flurry of edits, anon vandalism, and inevitable controversy. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we'd like some outside opinion; a fresh pair of eyes is always a good thing. Comments? Suggestions? Neutralitytalk 07:04, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is pretty neutral, more so than commercial news I saw about the case. Basic rules of journalism should apply - cite your sources, get at least two sources and consider their neutrality when taking information from them. As it stands this article is pretty stuffed with facts that I did not see on news shows AT ALL. I say leave it be, it hits both sides pretty hard.AC 1:03, 21 April 2005


 * I highly agree that this article could use some new eyes, and some more rigorous application of Wikipedia policy. We have policy to guide us when the editing gets hot so we can craft a good article without emotion taking over.
 * With all that is going on the quality of the article that has made it there is pretty amazing. Wikipedia ought to be the best place on the net to go to get a full understanding of this issue with due consideration to all aspects of the controversy. Jdavidb 07:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel that sometimes controversial articles go through a "trial by fire," where there are so many strong feelings and so many involved editors that the article eventually becomes more NPOV (if not more stable...) than it would if only a few users edited it. Neutralitytalk 07:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. (And my comment above is in agreement with you, as well.)  More eyes make better articles, especially on controversial topics.  (Well, unless the more eyes are anonymous vandals...) Jdavidb 07:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * One actual intelligent conservative I know often attributes the motives of Schiavo's husband to bad faith stemming from the fact that he has remarried. Whether this has any credence or not, I think there should be a sentence or two about this in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 07:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll try and work it in somewhere, later. Neutralitytalk 07:15, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * There has been some excellent updates to this article over the past few days and many Wikipedians have done sterling work keeping the vandals at bay (you know who you are!), it is actually getting close to FAC status in my opinion. I think a peer review should hold off for a while until she is out of the news. Zerbey 18:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article does a good enough job representing the family's point-of-view - see in which Terri's father says "She is fighting like hell to stay alive." I personally believe the parents are clinging to false hopes and that Terri should be allowed to die, but I think the article is too firmly biased towards my opinion, and not representative enough of her parents who see her as fighting death, and of religious supporters who see her death as a terrible crime. - Brian Kendig 23:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just rearranged the paragraph where schiavo's parents cite the affadavits of 33 specialists that Terri could benefit from therapy. The fact that they made these diagnosis based on 4.5 minutes of video really, REALLY changes the weight of those affidavits. I put the part where the parent make the tape first, 4 hours down to 4 minutes, then put in the part that they showed the clips to doctors, and then when they cite their diagnosis, the reader knows that it wasn't from a full, in person exam, but from 4 minutes of video selected by the parents. Mentioning the video at the end fo the paragraph is out of historical order for one (tape first then affidavits) and grossly downplays how those affadavits were acquired. I hope I didn't create any errors in moving text around. anon

And someone keeps switching it back. were the changes inaccurate? Or does someone simply want to downplay that all those affidavits were based off of 4.5 minutes of video? anon
 * Well, I think I would count as someone with a fairly new eye, and someone with some qualifications to comment on the neurological aspects of the case as a behavioral neurologist. Overall, the article seems to be well-written and well-balanced, though there might be a slight edge to those siding with removal of the feeding tube, however this edge by-and=large appears to be derived from matters that have been ruled time and again as fact in the courts, and supported by the majority of the medical community, so I think it is a reasonable one at this point.  This is a timely article, which has done about as good a job as possible documenting this tragedy.  I say feature it now. -- Glen Finney 17:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Glen, please read the court documents. Where it says the attorneys days after her feeding tube was pulled said she tried to talk. READ THE AFFADAVIT. This needs to be either deleted, reworked or Wikipedia will face lawsuits.


 * Just saw this recently. I believe I made my comments regarding the court rulings prior to the feeding tube removal.  Again, the article was about as balanced as anything you could find in the professional media at the time.  It was reasonable to have posted as a timely article.

As for suggestions, I just included a basic timeline of the various events. I think it is important that the history be put in proper order, rather than requiring readers to jump around and extract the information from the various "point of view" sections. anon

This is a monster of an article. The section on her condition should be summarized and the present detail moved to a daughter article. Same with the government involvement section. A great many sentences start with "On {date}" and "In {date}" which is bad form. Also, for an article on such a controversial subject, I'd expect more inline citations. --mav 16:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The article has improved alot since the last time I looked at it. The family dispute section still nedds work, it is currently heaps of single sentences (which makes it quite disjointed) it should be made into more structured paragraphs. Also think the article as is contians a good amount of information and would prefer if it wasn't broken off into smaller articles.--nixie 23:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Not everybody wants or needs so much detail. --mav 02:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that some do is reason enough to leave it in. --Toksyuryeltalk 14:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We can still have the detail for those who want it by having daughter articles. Most people, however, will want a more condensed version that just has the most important details. --mav 04:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)