Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC) If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. This is a unique article with provoking subject matter and I would like to discuss it with you during the nomination. I'm sorry that you had to wait so long for this, SilkTork. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Outset[edit]

Preamble discussion - resolved

All right. Before I begin my review, I have read the article twice and have some comments, I'd be happy to discuss with you. I know that this is a contentious subject and will do my best to review it impartially. I have three thoughts going in to this:

  • The formatting is very non-standard.
    • The lead is long and extensively cited, with information that should be covered in the body.
    • A length bullet-point section describes the report. I think that unimportant points should be removed, or that the points should be grouped in prose
  • Structure is a little confusing and haphazard
    • I suggest move "Sujiatun" to "Background", and have the middle section solely discuss the report. Have subsections for the first and second report. Have subsubsections under the second report grouping the allergations by topic.
    • I suggest add subsections to the "Response" section - "Chinese response / International response / Other responses"
  • There are a few dates provides as a day and a month with no year which is confusing to read.
  • You may wish (OK, I did say three, but I will add a fourth) to expand the subsection "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China" with changes that were proposed last year (2013) regarding a voluntary donation system and decreasing use of criminal organs.

This is just my preliminary impression and I will do a more thorough review against the WP:GARC when some changes have been made to the article's structure and lead, or after a discussion about this. I hope that you are well. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking this on. I've been away in the Cotswolds for a few days. I have a few things to do now that I'm back, but I'll take a look at your suggestions as soon as I can. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries, please feel free to take your time in responding. --LT910001 (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Am working through now. The article has changed considerably since I last worked on it, and the changes (as you note) have not been good. I am looking now to see what changes have been positive, and keep those, otherwise I might just roll back to my last edit, and work on that version. I am agreeing with your comments so far. I will take a look at the lead later today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've made some changes to structure by adding some subheadings so that content is more readable and logically divided, I hope that is OK. --LT910001 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, have done some work. Would you have a quick look over and see how much work you feel needs to be done, if there isn't much I'll get it done, but if you feel it is substantial, then it might be best to close this as a fail as I have limited time at the moment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's OK. I feel this article could make it to GA within a reasonable timespan, and you have addressed many of my concerns. What I will do is over the next few days review the article and provide some more detailed comments, and then put it on hold. --LT910001 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Parking these cites here temporarily. Removed from lead as not needed: <ref>{}</ref><ref name="CSM2006">{}</ref> SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

  • Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
  • If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
  • Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well-written
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See comments
2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Addresses the report and criticism
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. No flags
7. Overall assessment.

Commentary[edit]

This report is well-written and well-cited. I have two major comments:

  1. The citations are not in a consistent style and many are bare URLs. The URLs will need to be expanded and I'd value if you could quickly run over the citations to make sure they all have a date, name/author, and name in addition to the url - many citations only have one or two of these
  2. The lead is an excellent overview, however I note that it contains over 20 citations, and that some reviewers may consider this to not be summarising the content of the article. However, I think that the article is contentious enough that these citations ought to be inline.

I am happy that the article is neutral, and covers the report in sufficient depth. It's good that the report is linked in 'external links'. --LT910001 (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Awaiting your reply, --LT910001 (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review, and I'll take a look at the citation issues you raise. Inconsistency between citation methods is not a GA issue - the reference section may contain a variety of citation methods as laid out in WP:FNNR, which is the criteria GA uses. I agree it is useful to have as much information as possible in a cite, though again this is not a GA issue, as the requirement is only that there are citations, and that they are grouped in an appropriate reference section, again as laid out in WP:FNNR. I have sometimes noticed in other GA reviews, the reviewer asking for similar information - page numbers, etc, and/or for consistency in citation. I think this is from those who may do both FA and GA reviews. It may be worth raising the issue at the GA talk page to see if there is an interest in expanding criteria 2a to include some form of consistency and minimum information (page numbers and dates, etc). SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been through and formatted the cites. Let me know if there are any that you are still not happy with. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Verification[edit]

This may come out of left field and I'm sorry to surprise you. I've been through about half the citations in the article. There are still many problems, and I think as you suggest at the start it may be better to fail this review, wait until you and other users have time to edit this article properly, and then re-request a review. This is because I think the efforts will be effort intensive:

  1. There are numerous dead links in the article that make verification impossible
  2. Because of this I feel it's very important to completely fill out, including with access dates, the semi-filled out citations
  3. There are several quotations that are not completely accurate
  4. There are many instances where sources appear to be 'slightly' wrong. This feels like the initial edits have been changed by users in the last eight years, but that the sources haven't been verified alongside it. I've noted these where I can.
  5. This is a contentious topic and I am reticent to promote it with so many sources being unavailable and so many inconsistencies.

Thus, what I feel is the best course of action is to fail this article, give some time while the sources are re-factored and verified, and then re-nominated. I recognize the large amount of work that you and others have put into this article but I do not think this article meets the standard. I would like your opinion on this. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't wish to carry on, then that's fine, we are all volunteers, and sometimes we start something and don't want to see it through. No worries. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This statement "Estimates have been revised downwards from earlier numbers to reflect changing estimates of the overall Laogai System population by the Laogai Research Foundation" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 73 next to the statement: I sat down with the Laogai Foundation researchers in DC and they informed me that they had revised their total estimate of the Laogai System (defined as labor camps, prisons, black jails, psychiatric hospitals, long-term detention centers, the lot) down from 4-6 million to 3-5 million.
I refer to here: "He initially estimated ". It appears the numbers given are from his revised estimates. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This statement "he had seen a body "in the morgue with holes where body parts had been removed" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 68 next to the statement: "Cao Dong said that one evening, his best friend was taken from their cell. Next, he saw his friend's cadaver in the morgue with holes where body parts had been removed.".
The Wiki article says it was "his taxi driver" and then provides a quote written in a way that it appears to be from Cao Dong. The source article states that Cao Dong was "a" taxi driver and provides a paraphrased statement that is not a quote from Cao Dong. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This statement "Israeli health insurance carriers stopped sending patients to China for transplants" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 55 next to the statement: "Israeli health providers announced their decision to stop funding Israelis to go to China for organ transplants"
Are healthcare providers insurance carriers or private hospital networks? --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This statement " a petition signed by 140 Canadian Physicians 'urging the Canadian Government'" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 52 next to the statement: "He established a petition urging the Canadian government to issue travel advisories warning people that organ transplants in China include the use of organs harvested from non-consenting donors such as Falun Gong practitioners. He got the petition signed by 140 Canadian physicians"
I can't find the quoted text word-for-word, however. If it's not a quote, it will closely paraphrase the text and needs to be reworded. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't checked the others. I just started at the bottom and worked my way up. Was there a problem with your browser when you checked those sources? It may be that it skipped to the wrong citation or something.
I understand if you prefer not to continue with this review, but would you mind just checking over your queries before you do, as there may have been a mistake. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

SilkTork thanks for your very understanding approach. I hope my comments above have elucidated why this is the case. In my mind there are small inconsistencies, but enough to mean that all sources ought to be checked. However, there's quite a lot of dead sources that are unable to be checked. This effort is also time consuming and I would prefer if it could happen as part of the editing rather than reviewing process. To reiterate this doesn't reflect on any of the editors, but rather demonstrates this article has healthily had a great deal of editing over the last 8 years and that some things may have been slightly moved in the process. I have marked this review as failed and encourage you to renominate when sources have been verified and dead links replaced. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, and thanks for what you have done. Having checked your concerns again, I have made adjustments and put in archive links. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)