Wikipedia:Peer review/Winkler County nurse whistleblower case/archive1

Winkler County nurse whistleblower case
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of attempting my first FA nomination. I'm concerned that the article might be a little thin for FA. The article reflects negatively on several living people, so I want to ensure strong referencing and NPOV. I placed this under Social Sciences and Society because I think its largest implications are in the area of ethics.

Thanks, EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 07:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess the PR bot archived this because it hadn't had comments in three weeks, but I'll leave comments anyway because I assume you still want them.


 * Lead
 * Some of your prepositions are awkward. For example "that centered on the retaliation upon two nurses" and "Arafiles spoke with the sheriff of Winkler County".
 * This is a bit awkward: "Arafiles alleged that the nurses were engaging in harassment with their reports to the medical board." How about: "Arafiles alleged that the nurses' reports to the medical board constituted harassment."
 * "In the aftermath of Mitchell's trial, Arafiles, several county officials and a hospital administrator all faced jail time for their roles in the retaliation against the nurses." No serial comma used here; make sure style is consistent throughout the article.
 * "Texas law included remedies against retaliation for whistleblowers" I'm unclear about the definition of "remedies" here. Does this mean only that you could claim damages of someone retaliated, or were there laws disallowing retaliation? Those seem like different things.
 * "but no known U.S. state had whistleblower laws that address appropriate prosecutorial conduct" Should "address" be past tense like the rest of the sentence?
 * "The TMB stopped investigating anonymous complaints about physicians in September 2011." Does this sentence have a causal relationship with the one before it? If so, make that clear.

Be back later with more. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Background
 * I think "registered nurse" is worth wikilinking and/or explaining; there is significant ignorance about the different types of nurses. Verify they were actually RNs.
 * The second para seems to skip over some details. If Arafiles trained in Buffalo and Baltimore, what brought him to Texas? Did he do his residency there? If not, where? The license restriction narrative seems backward to me; it would be more logical to describe what he did, and then say as a result, his license was restricted.
 * "Arafiles' care"?
 * "Arafiles was alleged to have performed a skin graft on a patient in the emergency room despite not having surgery privileges at the hospital" What is the source for this? It doesn't seem to be covered in FN 9.
 * Doing a random check for close paraphrasing on FN 9, I find that the article text is much too close to the source text. Review Close paraphrasing for advice on this.
 * "The letter said that the nurses feared losing their jobs if their identities were revealed in connection with the complaint." This needs some work on grammar and details. Letters don't say anything, they "read". Also, according to the source, the letter read, "I am hesitant to place a signature on this information." Which nurse is the "I" in this case? This detail suggests that one of the nurses penned the letter with the intention of it being from both of them.
 * Reading the source at FN 1, I see more close paraphrasing (cf. "shared responsibilities for the role of medical staff coordinator for the hospital." (source) and "split the responsibilities of the medical staff coordinator position." (article)).
 * Your source at FN 11 actually provides some detail about who actually wrote the letter; you've omitted this detail from the article.
 * "Arafiles became aware of the complaint" How?
 * The last para is a bit disorganized and inaccurate. It is important to establish the reasons for Roberts' actions insofar as they are known, but the source provided (FN 11) doesn't establish that they were friends. It just reads, "The sheriff, an admiring patient..." This detail is present in other sources you've used, so make sure to get the right citations for the facts you are presenting.


 * Termination and criminal charges
 * More close paraphrasing: "He also said that the nurses didn't seek patients' permission when they sent medical records of 10 patients to the board." (source) vs. "He also noted that the nurses did not seek permission from the patients whose medical records were sent to the TMB" (article)
 * Another awkward preposition: "began to raise awareness about the plight of the nurses." You raise awareness of something.
 * "The ... jury deliberated for about one hour before reaching their verdict" (source) vs. "The jury ... deliberated for around an hour before acquitting her." (article)


 * Aftermath
 * "He resigned again in October 2010." Did it work that time?
 * More detail is needed on Tidwell. "Similar charges" is not really enough information to make sense of why he would receive jail time and fines, after we've read only that it was perhaps an ill-advised prosecution.
 * FN 24 isn't working.. check all sources for broken links.


 * General
 * I'm not too satisfied with the source coverage of the relationship between Arafiles and Roberts. Some sources say they were friends, one says "golf buddies", one says they didn't really know each other. I think you'll need to include text indicating that the relationship remains unclear and that sources disagree on how close they really were.
 * Obviously close paraphrasing is a huge problem in this article, and I think you'll need to go through each source, compare it to what you've written, and adjust accordingly. As I mentioned, review Close paraphrasing for advice on how to spot and fix it. Word substitution isn't good enough for paraphrasing; you have to rewrite the whole concept in your own words.

Hope this helps. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)