Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial review finished, I also made several minor corrections to spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. Overall I think this is a nice article which could pass review with some more work. After a second opinion is given I will likely put this article on hold to allow time for improvement.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The wiki MoS guidelines for the lead suggest that only 2 or 3 paragraphs are needed for an article of this size. However, I do not see an easy way to reduce it to 3 paragraphs, so I'm fine with using 4.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All quotes and potentially controversial claims appear to be sourced, the sources appear reliable, and there is no original research that I could find. I randomly checked some of the easily-accessed sources to verify that the article did not misrepresent a claim. That sampling checked out, so I'm inclined to say we are good on sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I want a second opinion, at the very least on coverage and NPOV. (comments elsewhere are welcome too)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Waiting on 2nd opinion to verify NPOV and Coverage

Aaron north (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Everything looks good to me now. I'll wait until the second opinion to see if there's something I may have missed. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• In Population studies (under Scientific Evaluation) I'm not sure that we need the last paragraph. Every sentence in that last paragraph seems to restate information in the prior two paragraphs (In Europe,... and In North America,...).

First, thanks for the review! I think it would be useful to have a summary paragraph instead of making readers get bogged down in the numbers. If you think it's too duplicated, that paragraph can be removed entirely as the information is already in the above, as you mentioned. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if not enough coverage is given to the increased profile given to the autism link by the advocacy of celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. Not that their opinions should carry any credibility in the debate, but that they may have increased the number of people supporting the autism link. It might merit a few more sentences or a paragraph under "publicity of concern", anyway.

I agree that was a glaring omission, and added some info. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, I think the last paragraph may need to briefly mention the historical and expected lack of success for these autism court cases. Just saying that thousands of cases were filed may lead the reader to conclude that a lot (or specifically, more than one) of these cases will be successful.

Extra sentence added.Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do believe that we could have an appropriate use of the list style in "consequences", however looking at the MoS for lists, it looks like we need some sort of introductory paragraph generally stating that the belief in the autism link has led to some consequences before listing those consequences. (also see a related comment below under the optional suggestions) Alternatively, the list style could be abandoned in favor of prose, which is usually preferred over lists when possible. We would probably still need an introductory paragraph in that case.

The list format was a recent addition; changed it back to prose to better confirm with MoS. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if there is available polling data to confirm the increased belief among parents that autism is linked with thiomersal and/or vaccinations? There are plenty of sources in the article that refer to an increased acceptance of this theory so it probably isn't needed to satisfy coverage, but it might still be useful to include scientific polls and surveys in the US and other countries. If these polls and surveys exist, it could be used as an introduction to the list of consequences.

I don't think there's been any polling data about thiomersal (well, if it exists, I can't find it). Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, was just a thought. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice to have another image at the top, but exactly what that image should be is not obvious to me. The only thing that comes to mind is perhaps a photograph of a vaccine protest? This could just be one of those public policy type of articles where images (aside from charts and graphs) are just not needed to be a good article.

I agree that another image would be preferable. I tried searching through the US government and PLoS sites for some free images, but couldn't find any that were particularly related to thiomersal itself (aside from generic images of syringes, etc). Not sure where to get free image of a vaccine protest...Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be fine for this review. With this subject, it would probably be difficult to imagine what kind of images would add value to the article. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion Wanted

I would like a second opinion from another reviewer. I do not yet have a lot of experience as a reviewer, and this is my first review of a significant controversial article. On this subject, I am also personally biased against the claim of a link between vaccines containing Thiomersal and Autism, but I believe I am able to be objective. However, I'd still like to verify that coverage and NPOV is fine. (comments regarding the rest of the GA criteria also welcome) Aaron north (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually involved in the field (it would be great to hear from someone who is!), but the article does appear NPOV on the surface. I'm not in a position to evaluate its factual accuracy, but the material is presented in a manner which appears evenhanded, and seems to reflect the general scientific consensus (as I understand it). --Xiaphias (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is good enough for me, thank you! Aaron north (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work invested in this article, however it seems a little slanted towards the position of those who discredit the dangers of mercury poisoning from vaccines. I believe more references should be given supporting the opposing viewpoint, given that the page is devoted to the "controversy" of Thiomersal. One such reference would include the video presentation of Dr. David Ayoub, M.D.; there are numerous others by credible professionals in the field, which I can supply links to if such updates are made. K0dpw (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No reputable scientific body on Earth believes that thiomersal causes "mercury poisoning" or autism. It would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT to give isolated vaccine opponents equal time as we give the entire mainstream worldwide medical community. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)