138:
A much more condensed version is needed for this article. The major sections should be summarized and the detail spun into articles that deal with the same sub topic in more detail. I see this has already been done for the
Government involvement section. Once that is done a series box could be added
83:
There is huge value in the references in this article, however since they are direct numbered links, if the target is moved or the text of the reference is later changed then it will be impossible to work out what has happened. Please could you convert to a system which preserves the full reference
116:
there is a bunch of attribution made in comments which could be better brought out into the article directly. Footnotes for referencing might partly solve this, but still it's better to say "the official view of the AAN is that ...." and make a direct quotation than to put it in a hidden comment.
55:
I think it's a possibility. I'm pleased at how the article has become about as NPOV as it's going to get; a side-effect of that though is that the article is huge, and it might be challenging to shrink it and keep everyone happy. Perhaps the "Life-prolonging procedures" and "Family dispute"
92:
or another system of inline references. Important information is: * Author * organisation * date of publication and/or last modification * date of verification / use * (ideally) a single sentence summary of the value of the
148:
I know how frustrating it is to receive conflicting advice, but I disagree with mav. The article structure works fine as it is. In my opinion, summarizing and spinning off elements will make it harder to follow.
56:
sections could be condensed a bit, and some of the quotes throughout the article could be condensed (keeping the citations though). Maybe there might be benefit to spinning off some of the information into
68:). As well, I think it would be a good idea if the in-line external links were all moved into a "Footnotes" section in the References. That's all I can think of right now.
162:
No it won't. So long as the summary is good. As is, the article is simply too detailed and long to follow, except for the most determined reader. Look at what happened with
47:
The last peer review request was done in the midst of the media circus and was very helpful. Now that the situation has calmed down somewhat I'm hoping for a FAC. Comments?
113:) this should be considerably reduced, and a link to the main article should be given. In this particular case, the main article should probably be checked over carefully.
40:
166:, which was as long as this article is until some people decided to create a more efficient treatment of the topic. That article is much more useful now. --
163:
21:
110:
101:
106:
should be qualified by something like "according to a large majority, but not all, of medics who examined her"
174:
85:
120:
at one stage the term "permanent vegetative state" is used rather than "persistent" I guess this is wrong?
61:
156:
143:
76:
17:
96:
The introduction fails to clearly mention the political aspects which at it's current length it should.
153:
73:
89:
177:
can make the article much easier to follow and still allows getting all of the details accross. -
167:
150:
140:
69:
57:
48:
131:
65:
31:
178:
126:
the article is definitely too long splitting / summarising / etc. would be good.
123:
where you have quotations, ("attempt to feed") they should be in quotation marks
64:
articles (yes, both of those are bluelinks but they both currently redirect to
109:
sections seem to be direct cut and paste of other articles (e.g.
117:
The hidden comment might still be useful, of course.
100:who spent the last 15 years of her life in a
8:
41:Knowledge:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive1
139:to help tie all the articles together. --
164:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan
7:
28:
39:Previous peer review request:
1:
102:persistent vegetative state
196:
51:22:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
181:15:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
157:23:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
144:16:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
170:02:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
134:18:07, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
84:information for future
77:19:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
62:Bob and Mary Schindler
18:Knowledge:Peer review
88:. I would suggest
187:
195:
194:
190:
189:
188:
186:
185:
184:
173:Agreed. Proper
58:Michael Schiavo
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
193:
191:
183:
182:
171:
136:
135:
128:
127:
124:
121:
118:
114:
107:
97:
94:
80:
79:
45:
44:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
192:
180:
176:
175:summary style
172:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
152:
146:
145:
142:
133:
130:
129:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
108:
105:
103:
98:
95:
91:
87:
82:
81:
78:
75:
71:
67:
66:Terri Schiavo
63:
59:
54:
53:
52:
50:
43:
42:
37:
36:
33:
32:Terri Schiavo
30:
23:
22:Terri Schiavo
19:
147:
137:
99:
86:verification
46:
38:
70:JYolkowski
49:Neutrality
132:Mozzerati
90:Footnotes
20: |
93:source.
179:Taxman
154:(Talk)
151:Theo
104:(PVS)
16:<
74:talk
60:and
168:mav
141:mav
111:PVS
72://
149:--
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.