Talk:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis/GA Review 2

The article looks very good, and is well-sourced. I believe it contains most of the information necessary for the subject. It also seems to pass the neutrality and stability requirements of the Good Article criteria. It does lack images, so I can't really judge criterion 6; though the lack of images doesn't automatically exclude an article from WP:GA. Some images could help, possibly in discussions of the political aspects.

For readability, I am putting responses within your post. Always on the lookout for a suitable image. I had an opportunity to take a picture of a pro-life bill-board on ABC a while back; but did not. Thanks you for the NPOV nod, it took a lot of work and some disagreements to be sure.

The main issue with this article, holding it up from GA at the present time, is organization. I'm confused whether the article's sections & subsections are intended to be read as a chronological history, which they are not in chronological order (the 'politicization' section isn't even in chronological order within itself!). It seems to jump around between talking about the politics, to talking about the scientific hypothesis, to then going back into politics again. I would recommend organization this article into two major sections: 'politics' and 'scientific background'. As a matter of fact, I would also begin by going into the scientific studies, and put all the political discussion after that.

Good suggestion, though I found the mixing appropriate given the topic; as they seem to influence each other more than my comfort level can tolerate. (hence my interest in the topic) Some topics, such as Carroll and NCI Workshop I believe belong to both categories.

Also, I hope to soon create short sub-section on the ABC Mechanism and ABC history (ie. older studies which hinted at a ABC correlation)

The North Dakota lawsuit and state laws sections should be combined into the political section. State laws should probably be expanded, as it only seems to cover a few states, not all of them. The article also seems to be very US-centric, and more information can be added about laws and policies in other nations.

Certainly as part of the new organizing, kept sub sections to maintain ease of navigation and readability. I'll merge State Laws into Politicization, because there are no other instances I am aware of and only a few states have proposed bills on the ABC issue; so only a few are mentioned as a result.

Tweaked "is pending" to "was pending". Update obviously needed.

Why does Patrick Carroll have a main section in the article? What's his significance to the topic? It seems like this can be merged into another section, probably with the scientific background.

Has made several studies pro-life groups/individuals like to point to as scientific; when in actuality it isn't. The study is interesting but is a prediction not a scientific study. It being included in a scientific header could be misleading... putting in in the political section is more appropriate; but that can be misleading too.

The article also needs a good copyedit. There are several grammatical errors that I found; specifically, some cases where "women" is used instead of the singular "woman". There's also some issues with the manual of style, specifically cases involving the wikilinking of full dates (e.g. the full date should be wikilinked as November 3, 2007; don't write November 3 2007). Single years and month/years should not be wikilinked.

I prefer fewer wikilinks, grammar has simply been missed by everyone. Found one woman easily enough. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

External links should not be included in article text. They should only appear in the 'external links' section. Only internal wikilinks should appear in the article's text itself. There's also quite a few external links at the end; review WP:EL for tips on pruning this section.

Ref'd in the article links; the amount of external links is a judgment call. But I can easily remove the least interesting link from each category.

There's some minor issues with reference citation formatting. When web links are used as inline citations, the full citation information must be included, not just the link. You should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, and the date that the URL was last retrieved. This is so that, if the link ever disappears, the reference can still be used to help track and verify the information. Please seeWP:CITE for more information on inline citation formatting.

I'm well aware, its just a lotta links; and now my Wikicite template link is dead ... again. Making the process simply too time consuming to contemplate right now.

Once these issues are fixed, I believe the article can be promoted to WP:GA. I will place it on hold for now, and review it again in about a week. Cheers! Dr. Cash 19:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm definitely looking forward to it. Any failings are mine; as I am doing this at 2:43 AM... no wait, make that 1:43 am... the time is about to go back an hour... a week late mind you; but I can certainly use it! Have a good one. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new section, Michels (also Mechanism and Background were added previously); hopefully this does not make the article too unstable for your review. As a consequence of the Michels figures, I also tweaked the case - control brackets of the other studies to help clarify what is meant by case vs control. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Update most links with requested information as the Wikicite template is back up. Found some dead links and better links; but so much for my extra hour today. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The article looks much better now. I believe it meets the Good Article criteria, and will be listed. Good work! Dr. Cash 07:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)