Talk:Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review. I am interested in legal matters and the MMR vaccine issue is also of interest to me. I will study the article in detail in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

In general, this is an excellent, well-written and well-organised article. There were a few minor points I noticed. I usually leave reading the lead to the end as then I can better observe how well it summarises the article.

The first sentence of "Background" should mention the United States.
"Stephen Bustin of Queen Mary, University of London." - No comma required in the university title.
You should explain what DMSA is.
You should wikilink "in vitro", "peer-reviewed",
"In the second set of the proceedings, which pertained to thimerosal alone (as opposed to thimerosal working in conjunction with MMR), Brent testified, with regard to Jordan King and one other autistic child who also served as a test case in this trial, that there was "absolutely no reason to chelate them for any mercury-related reason."" - this sentence is complex and confusing.
You should explain what "chelate" means in this context.
"In addition, Bustin and Bertus Rima both testified that Cotter was unable to replicate the Unigenetics lab's results, in contrast to Kennedy's claim that they were." - "were" what?

Having reached the end of the article, I studied the lead and found the following two statements that are not repeated in the body of the text. They need to be included and cited there:

"Though the NVICP had existed since 1988, it was not designed to handle the thousands of cases it received from 1999 to 2007, which led to the establishment of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding in 2002 by Gary J. Golkiewicz."
"George Hastings stating that "the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the infobox mention all three of the judges sitting in the court case? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have dealt with the first three comments I made but not with the others. Most are relatively unimportant but I regard the final comments about the lead as important. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the alterations made in response to my comments made above and believe this article fulfils the GA criteria. A very nice article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]