Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility/archive1

===University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility===

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… We created this article for a project through Texas A&M University. Our group would greatly appreciate any comments/suggestions to help make our article better!

Thanks, Laylou11 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility/archive1.
 * It doesn't look like you have gotten around to processing the various comments that have been provided on the article talk page over the last few days. For starters, I recommend that you look at the WP guidelines regarding article lead sections, as the lead section for this article does not resemble what the guidelines call for. That's one of several comments on the talk page. --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We've responded to all the comments on our talk page. Anything else? Thank you everyone for helping us create a better article for Wikipedia! Weilingz (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interseting article, obvious that a lot of work has gone into it, but still needs a lot of work to get to FA or even GA.

You say "we've responded to all the comments on our talk page" (emphasis added). I also read much of the article talk page. You might want to remember that while we are thankful to you for starting and working on this article, no one (and no group) "owns" any article - see WP:OWN. I am not sure what you mean by "responded to" either - many of the issues raised still have not been fixed.

I would also point out that when you write for different academic journals they all have different house styles, and Wikipedia has its own house style too - see WP:MOS. When others point out policies and guidelines in the MOS, you need to carefully read them and apply them to your article. For example, see the first comment on the lead, below. Here are some suggections to hopefully help improve the article: Hope this helps, keep up the good work Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD still has not been met - the lead is too short (probably need three paragraphs for this length article) and the current lead does not summarize the article. As a rule of thumb, I try to include every section or subsection in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. None of the selected cases are in the lead, nor are Jon Jefferson or publishing, nor are the future plans (to pick a few section titles).
 * Speaking of section headings, please read Mos where it says not to repeat the name of the article or higher section names, so Advocates of the Body Farm would be just Advocates. At least one other case in the article needs to be changed. Also avoid "the" in headers.
 * Be consistent througout the article - is it the Body Farm or the Original Body Farm, for example?
 * The title should be the focus of the article. Given that, what is the relation of the Big Bopper to the Body Farm? Couldn't anyone with an X-ray have shown he died right away? The story is good and would be fine in an article about Bass, but I don't see what it is doing here.
 * Try to organize the article so as to avoid needless repetition - you tell the story of the first case twice: once in History and once as a selected case. While it is fine to refer to it twice, why not emtnion it in history then give most of the details in the First case section?
 * Did case name protocol change? The first case is "1-81" (number, year) but the next case cited is "91-23" (year, number). Can this be explained?
 * I revised the article and explained this naming convention Weilingz (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Every paragraph needs at least one reference - the first paragraph under the "Advocates" section and the "Jon Jefferson" paragraph have no refs.
 * Also need refs for extraordianry claims, so The creation of such an institution has a great significance in the forensic world. needs a ref, for example.
 * that comment has been taken out Weilingz (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12 of 17 of the refs are to Bass or Jefferson books or interviews. FA will want more independent sources.


 * Ruhrfisch, Thank you for your comments! I apologize for my mistake in calling it "our" talk page. I just want to explain what I meant by "responded to." Since this is a group project, each member reads the talk page and alerts the other group members to changes they must make. So, we have all been alerted to the comments we received on the talk page. Since this is a group project, I can only urge my other group members to make revisions on their sections promptly. I will fix my section right now. Thank you again. Weilingz (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When is it politically correct to refer to this facility as the body farm? -Lopez (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ruhrfisch for your comments! I am going to address the questions you had regarding the sections I worked on- the case studies. The numbering for the cases was not necessarily a "typo"- Bill Bass and the Body Farm number their cases (from donated bodies at the actual Body Farm) according to "Number-year". However, in murder cases where Dr. Bass and his team are called out to, they do the exact opposite. Case 91-23 was not a donated body; it was an actual case that Dr. Bass helped lend his expertise. Should I make a note about that in the article explaining it in short terms? As for the Big Bopper, the reason I included him was to give a more recent and slightly more famous example. I know he doesn't have much to do with the Body farm, per se, but his son learned about Dr. Bass through his research at the Body Farm so I included it in the article. Laylou11 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: the repetitiveness of "1-81" has been fixed. Also, "Body Farm" is now consistently used throughout the article. Weilingz (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are all very welcome - one reason I was confused by the original "our talk page" was that I thought at first it meant the comments were on some sort of group talk page (I have seen your prof's talk page, for example). I have no problem refering to the facility as the Body Farm, my first point was just that the MOS says to leave it out of the headers (not PC, MOS). My second point was to be consistent - is it called the Body Farm or the Original Body Farm? If both, explain why. As for the numbering, I would explain that in the article. It still seems to me that the Bopper case, while interesting, does not belong in this article unless there is a clearer connection. Since you are part of a group, ask the other members what they think (Wikipedia is supposed to work on consensus). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will work on explaining the numbering system this evening. I need to find my source again that explains it first. As for the Big Bopper, if we were to take that paragraph out, should I replace it with another case that has more relevance to the Original Body Farm? Laylou11 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding to the two previous comments (as a third-party editor):
 * Ruhrfisch, it is just "Body Farm". "Original Body Farm" was first used as the article title to set it apart from more recently created facilities.  Now that the title has been changed, all instances of "original" have been removed from the article for consistency and accuracy.  Also, I'll strike out those points made above that have been addressed.  If the students involved would do the same when they've addressed issues, that would help focus future fixes.
 * Laylou, given the reasoning above, I would also suggest removing the Bopper section (perhaps something else can be done with it?). If you can find another case to replace it, that would be great. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Two places to look at for moving the Big Bopper case study - article on the Big Bopper and make an article on Dr. Bass and put it there too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Karanacs
Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead section should be expanded to include a broader summary of the article. See WP:LEAD
 * Watch out for words such as "Unfortunately". WP article should be of neutral point of view; present the facts and let the reader draw those conclusions.
 * The first section, Beginning, needs to be tightened to be more cohesive. It starts with a general summary, discusses history from before, and then goes into the founding.
 * A lot of the article still doesn't have citations.
 * Sections should generally be longer than one paragraph. You may be able to combine some of the sections in History.
 * The history section jumps from the early 1970s to the Present. What happened in the intervening 30 years?
 * Beware of labels like "Present", "Recently", etc. It's better to use dates (As of 2007,...), because your text may stand for years.
 * The selected cases section has some issues.
 * Are these cases that used the Body Farm itself or just used the knowledge of those employed at the Body Farm?
 * The selected cases should really not be a separate section. Instead, these tidbits should be incorporated into the history section or another part of the article.
 * At times, the article seems to read more like a history of William Bass's career rather than the Body Farm. I know that these are linked very closely, but sometimes a wording change will be enough to place to focus back on the Body Farm (the subject of the article) rather than on Bass.
 * There should not be separate mini-biographies of the founders/advocates. This needs to be worked into the article in a better way -- remembers, the focus should be on the Body Farm, not on the individuals.
 * I'd like to see a section on important findings that have resulted from this particular Body Farm. What techniques were pioneered there, what knowledge was discovered there?
 * For the article to reach Featured Article status eventually, you will need stronger sources. I'd recommend searching journals in the field.

Thank you for your comments. I will contact my group members and we will work on fixing the respective sections! Feel free to make any changes deemed necessary. Laylou11 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, I have been trying to find other sources such as scholarly journals as been suggested. So far I've had no luck. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks! Laylou11 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Two ideas - talk to your professor for the Entomology class 2) Bass must publish this work somewhere, find Bass' publications Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I contacted my professor already and she admitted it might be hard to find some journal publications but to seek advice from fellow Wikipedians. I have tried our university's online library database but to no avail. I will keep looking though. Laylou11 (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, thank you for your input! A common comment on our page is to find more independent resources. We have done our best to find other resources to use, however our article has already met all the requirements asked for by our teacher, including number of resources used. Though WP suggests a style of writing, this style is not required. We also stand by the order and content of our article (in response to comments about the content and order of our paragraphs). We will make revisions we see fit. Thank you again for reviewing our article. Be sure to check our page for the latest revisions! Weilingz (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)