Wikipedia:Peer review/Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I know there is a lot of room for improvement, and I would do it myself but I'm not all that experienced on Wikipedia.
Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The lead of this article needs to be trimmed down to properly summarize the article and the excess material moved down into the body of the article. Additional WP:RS sources are needed but they can wait until the material is moved. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback Daffydavid. I have shortened the lead, and was wondering if you could tell me exactly which sources the article uses that are unreliable. Jinkinson (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Generally court transcripts are considered primary sources and thus require a secondary source to validate them. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that the 3 cases tried in these hearings were on three different issues. 1- thimerosal and mercury, 2 - mercury alone, 3 - thimerosal alone. I could be wrong about this since I haven't had time to look it up but if this is the case then more info is needed to clarify this. Also the information in this article seems to center primarily on Cedillo with very little info on the other 2 cases. Fleshing these out would be helpful. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you mean "thimerosal and MMR", "MMR alone", and "thimerosal alone" since otherwise you would be repeating yourself. Jinkinson (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, didn't notice that but you understood anyway.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have also added WP:LAW to this project with the hope that there might be some input into this peer review. From my point of view, I believe this article could be improved if some sections were combined to reduce the odd layout of the article. Some thoughts:
- Could combine Plaintiff's experts, Plaintiff's representation and Proposed mechanism to make a more discursive structure.
Done - Plaintiff's claims and judges' conclusions could be split to a Plantiff section and Judges' conclusions merged with the rulings to Done
- Second set of cases and Reactions merged into an "Impact" section. Done
- Article could also include a picture.
- Of whom does "special masters" describe?
I hope this helps. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
OK I have reworked the article considerably, and in doing so have done most of the things LT910001 suggested. I was wondering, though, what should I include a picture of? Because this article used to have a picture in it, but Daffydavid removed it. Jinkinson (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed it and I have removed it again. The article is about the trial not the court itself. Would you include a picture of the courthouse seal if it was an automobile class action lawsuit against a major manufacturer? No, you would include a picture of the vehicle involved.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, sorry that this review got lost in the ether. I've made some changes myself to the layout to make this article more readable. An image might include an image of the people involved, or even the courthouse where the verdict was delivered, to give the article some flavour. I'm still not entirely clear as to whom "special masters" describes. Do you mean "affected children", or is this a legal term? Suggest you wikilink to disambiguate the meaning. Other than that, the article's looking pretty good now. Most parts are well cited and I hope this experience was educational =P per your original intent. Would you consider this PR concluded? Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am closing this peer review per here (WP:PR), as this article is now a GA candidate. LT910001 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)