Contents

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:04, 7 April 2017

• Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive2

Nominator(s): Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the right-to-die legal case centering around Terri Schiavo that took place in the United States from 1990-2005. This was a major legal and political conflict. The article has been nominated several times before, but was rejected due to controversial nature of subject. Article has been listed as a good article for almost 5 years now, without and major revisions or edit wars. Time to reconsider. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

• Hi Ace, welcome back to Wikipedia, and welcome to FAC. I'll hold my fire for the moment, but any time there's been a previous FAC, it's important to see what the problems were in that FAC and address them, rather than forcing reviewers to do the same work all over again. I looked quickly at Ealdgyth's comments, and I see that http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html, http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf, http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf, and probably others from her review still show up in the references. Were her questions ever answered? What makes those reliable sources, and do those sites have permission to host any copyrighted materials they're hosting? Also, note that the bar is higher at FAC than elsewhere ... we have a high quality sources clause. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can answer one question right off the bat. The reports of the gardian ad litem are matters of public record and anybody can post a copy. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

• Will try to read through for a full review, but I have some initial comments from a quick scan: There is a "citation needed" tag in the lead that dates back to September. Also, the references have some inconsistent date formats, and a number of references have "CS1" errors for external links in places they aren't expected or multiple authors listed in one 'author' field. --RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]