Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive3

Terri Schiavo

Previous peer review request: Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive1 (March 2005)

Previous peer review request: Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive2 (May 2005)

Well, we've had two peer reviews, a couple of major blowouts, mediation, some RFC's, and a massive rewrite. Personally, I think this version is pretty good, but I've been working on it for some time now. Please note that the article is still listed as in mediation, as a controversial topic, and that this has been a problematic article. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. FuelWagon 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this version is pretty good. The main problem is that it does not follow standard Wikipedia style. Why is the TOC right aligned and placed after the second paragraph? Why is the series box placed where the TOC should be, rather than in the upper right as is standard. The lead, if it is the top paragraph, is much too short. If it is the first two paragraphs then it is much too long. - SimonP 15:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I used to contribute to the article, but not for a good 2 months or so now (I gave up as it was too much bother), and it looks utterly different now, so I think I can get away with commenting. It's still twice as long as it should be - I remember a few sections were split off as it had grown to 70k, and it's now 80k + ! It needs a serious, determined effort to prune it massively. It should not be a cover-all-bases, report every fact, in-depth masterpiece. It should be an encyclopedia article. Report the main (the MAIN) facts, leave out all the opinion stuff about which doctor said this and which said that (just say the PVS decision was disputed), halve (preferably three quarter) the length of that huge intro.

If people want to know every facet of the story, they can follow the external links at the bottom and find this information elsewhere. It reads like an article that has been written by comittee (which it has), with every possible point of view on every possible point covered. And editors (who have, admittedly, worked on it ceaselessly) are far too protective of the article. Here is all the article needs to say:

"Terri Schiavo (blah blah 19?? - foo foo 2005) was an American woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. (no discussion of PVS should be in this article whatsoever - just link to the PVS article) Although this diagnosis was disputed by a minority of doctors who diagnosed her (refs), it was upheld a number of times by the courts (refs). Her husband, Michael Schiavo, took the decision to have her feeding tube withdrawn, a decision which was hotly contested and challenged by her parents (refs). The case garnered widespread national and international media attention, splitting the American public. A number of attempts weremade by various individuals, churchleaders and politicians (refs) to overturn the decision to withdraw the feeding tube, but at each stage courts upheld the original decision (refs). Eventually, Terri Schiavo passed away x days after the removal of her feeding tube on foo foo, 2005."

There, that's basically it. There's no justification for that sogging up 80k. The story is really quite straightforward, but it's been overanalysed and overwritten for an encyclopaedia article. Proto t c 23:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with Proto, though I would put it in milder wording. 80k is completely over the top for even the broadest of subjects and is hardly reasonable for this rather narrow subject. More consideration needs to be taken to the average reader than to please every minor detail of every imaginable POV of our own editors. If this is to stand a chance as a FAC, it needs to be hacked and slashed quite mercilessly.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree in the opposite direction; meaning I appreciate and concur with the issues raised; but I'm thinking bigger picture beyond (what I think should be a fluid) FA criteria. Wikipedia is a unique source and by my standards this article is a FA of the highest caliber; which simply entails people interested in the subject can come here and find important information collected and collated on the subject.

The subject is straightforward, but the story and its implications aren't; and the size and detail of this article is a barometer (reflection) of it being overanalyzed and overwritten in pop-culture. Maybe over time as this story fades into the past it would be appropriate to shrink the article; but if that were to occur (and nothing says to me it has to), I'd prefer it to be an organic process in step with its notability... rather than a scorched earth policy in pursuit of rules in a place where there are no rules.

Simply put Wikipedia puts other sources to shame. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far. I would just say in response to the idea of cutting the article: sure. except as soon as you cut out one accusation of witchcraft, someone will cry bias. Motions and affidavits of the most absurd accusations and assertions were filed and the court found most of them to be utterly without basis. But if you cut one affidavit, someone will howl that we left out so-and-so's accusations that Michael practiced statanic rituals on Terri, drank her blood, and danced on her grave, and therefore say the article is biased. They'll put the accusation back in, and it will get reverted, an edit war will flare up, and the only stable solution we've managed to reach is to describe so-and-so's accusations and then give a full account of how the court viewed them, what the guardian ad litems said contrary to them, and so on. The end result, of course, being an 80k article. If there's a way to shorten the article, that won't get reverted by those who wish to list every accusation of witchcraft against Michael, the only idea I canthink of is to break the 80k article into some sub articles. I'm not sure how, but I think if you just delete something, you'll see someone eventually put it back in, only they'll put in one POV versus all the different POV's. suggestions for how to cut it into subarticles would be appreciated. FuelWagon 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with a comprehensive article, but this entry desperately needs a concise and useful lead similar to the draft proto has sketched above. Having said that, and assuming it happens, is this representative of "Wikipedia's best work"? I'd say no: on the contrary, it's a good example of the things that the Wiki approach has typically not been able to do well. As FuelWagon intimates above, when things get contentious, sound editorial judgement (in the true sense of the word) becomes difficult or impossible, resulting in unending churn, or, in this case, an admittedly bloated, almost formless article. (This both despite and due to the obvious levels of time and passion various editors have invested). We have tons of seemingly-random trivia high in the article (e.g. which saint she was named for), while many of the really notable aspects of this subject (media reaction, use of the case for political purposes, and public response) -- the very things that should make up the bulk of the article -- are mentioned in passing or relegated to sub-articles. Jgm 13:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is way too long and way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I think just the first 2 paragrphs, plus a little summing up statement of its significance should suffice. There is no need to list EVERY doctor, EVERY diagnosis, EVERY school she attended, etc. While this topic is obviously important to those close to the person, it gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to other articles, and there is really very little in it that would interest a general public. What is needed here is some perspective. For example, the article on George Washington is less than half the size of this article. Is there really twice as much to say about Terri Schiavo than about George Washington that would actually interest a general public? This is not the forum to dispute issues, rather it is the place to put things into their proper perspective and to show how they fit with other aspects of knowledge. What is the historical significance of this case? Why should we remember it in 20 years? What does it tell us about the United States in 2005? Nrets 17:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a bio, it's too big. But for the crisis in America, it's fine. I mean, she's the Florida State Vegitable, right? ;)

Reults from automated tool:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- allege
- apparently
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
- Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am ~~now~~ using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy _t 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]