Jump to content

Talk:Henrietta Lacks/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 14:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this. -- Shudde talk 14:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just add comments as I read the article. They may or may not be crucial to whether the article meets the GA criteria, but usually I'll need them addressed one way or another. I'll do a source-review at the end. If I find any evidence of close-paraphrasing or copyright violations I usually fail the article immediately rather than giving it an opportunity to be corrected (unless it's very minor); this is just because it indicates there may be more serious problems, and I prefer the article to then be carefully checked before renomination. -- Shudde talk 14:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life
  • It is "Lack's" or "Lacks'" ? A genuine question!
    • I also see "Lacks's" was used later!
Last names that end is an s and possessives...one of the perennial arguments around WP. That particular usage in the article is when the usage is referring to Henrietta as a singular possessive. I am comfortable with most of the usage, have adjusted a few to try to avoid being too repetitious. Even though it might look odd, in my opinion the usage is not incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "owned by Lacks' white" -- unclear which "Lack's" is being referred to here, Henrietta or Tommy
  • Garrett or Garret -- I see both spellings
The last name is "Lacks". The plural possessive would be Lacks', which is the same as the singular Lacks'
They were cousins and so the familial relationships would be the same, but the sense of the sentence was the article-subject so have adjusted the words.
Garrett is correct. Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Illness
  • I would try and add a laypersons description of "squamous cell carcinoma", for example, "Soon after, Lacks was told that she had a malignant epidermoid carcinoma of the cervix–a form of skin cancer."
  • As above, "and actually had an adenocarcinoma of the cervix–which is a quite different form (type?) or cancer."
  • Again I would have something for "cell line" -- a small description that can be easily understood by the layperson. Not many people will be familiar with what exactly a cell line is. I understand that people could click on the link, but in this case it is so crucial to understanding Lacks' notability and why we have an article on her. If it was peripheral then sure don't do it, but it's central so I think we should.
  • I would just use "Acute kidney injury" instead of "Uremic poisoning" -- again this is just a case of trying to reduce any jargon.
I will have to think about how to do add definitions to the article...will have to construct a notes section and those can get complicated coding-wise.
Looked at both of the references following "uremic poisoning". Even though an autopsy was done, neither ref states what killed her - though, obviously, if she hadn't had the cancer she would't have died then - deleted term "uremic poisoning".Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • I disagree on WWII. People who come to Wikipedia can have a limited knowledge of world history. If you go out on the street and ask 20 random people "What is World War II? Tell me what you know." I would bet a significant number of them wouldn't get the facts at all right. I am comfortable with leaving that linked.
  • Agree on black people & have delinked it - African-American is linked and that is enough.
  • Disagree on Civil War (which is linked once). Again, I think it is important. besides, in different areas of the world that conflict is called by different names. In the US, it is known as "the Civil War" but also as "The War Between the States", worldwide it is known as "the American Civil War". I am comfortable leaving it linked.
  • Have unlinked German. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "duplicate links": Per WP:DUPLINK a link may be repeated in infoboxes & at the first occurrence within the article. Have removed the linkage in "Death & burial". Removed the second occurrence of Halifax County. Re: George Otto Gey - 1st occurrence after lede may be retained, so have retained that second one (in Illness section), have deleted linkage in "Medical and scientific research" section. Have done the same with HeLa, retaining the occurrence in the image caption and in the footnote (again, per WP:DUPLINK). Removed second occurrence of cell line & of Morehouse. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will add more soon. -- Shudde talk 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical and scientific research
  • "at a higher rate " -- than what?
Agreed
  • "could be divided multiple times without dying", is this the best language, would "could divide multiple times without dying" better?
Agreed
  • What is the "roller-tube technique" and why is it important?
This is too complicated to put into the body of the article. Per my above comment re: a Notes section, creating a Notes section can get complicated and will take some time for me to create. I will combine all the jargon type concerns into a single Notes section when I am finished with the other concerns of this Review.
  • Is "the same cell" correct here? Is "identical cells" better?
No, it was actually the same cell that divided and then divided and then...the HeLa cells are duplicates of the original cells, they are clones.
  • "was using HeLa cells" --> "used HeLa cells" ?
He was using them when he was developing the polio vaccine, the verb-tense is correct. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical issues raised
  • I'm not sure if I like this section title, it seems a bit vague ("issues"?). Why not be more specific. Such as "Consent and privacy concerns" or something along those lines?
Agreed. Changed section title.
  • Could you be more specific regarding the commercialisation of the cells? In what way were they commercialized?
Agreed. Added refs, adjusted wording.
  • Why did the family only raise concerns in 2013, was that specific publication significant, and if so why?
Within the article's timeline, it is clear that the family raised concerns before 2013, but as the article states with its quotes from one of Henrietta Lacks's grandchildren: "the biggest concern was privacy - what information was actually going to be out there about our grandmother, and what information they can obtain from her sequencing that will tell them about her children and grandchildren and going down the line"
  • "cells' DNA code " -- is "genetic material" more suitable, or is the agreement only regarding DNA code?
No, it is the actual code that is under consideration here.
  • How significant is the NIH agreement? I thought I read some time ago that this is only really going to influence NIH related work. Are there any other funding/regulatory bodies that are going to regulate the use of HeLa, or is it just the NIH?
At the present time, this agreement concerns only researchers who want to use the DNA code/genetic information that is in the NIH database will have to "apply for access and will [also] have to submit annual reports about their research". Have adjusted the text & placement of refs to reflect that. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come soon. -- Shudde talk 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition
  • "In 1996, the Morehouse School of Medicine held the first of its HeLa Women's Health Conferences, honoring Henrietta Lacks, the cell line named for her, and "in recognition of the valuable contribution made by African Americans to medical research and clinical practice"[28][29] with Dr. Roland Pattillo continuing to spearhead the annual events." -- this sentence should probably be split up to aid readability.
Agreed. Have adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In popular culture
  • We have a lot of one sentence paragraphs here. Could this be addressed?
  • "begin in the summer" -- which summer, northern or southern! Should this not have started already?
  • I think this section could probably be condensed a little bit. Some of it is barely notable, so for example you could have one sentence on music released about her, one about visual media (films, documentaries), and maybe a couple on the print media.
  • "released Enhanced Methods of Questioning" --> "released the EP Enhanced Methods of Questioning"
consolidated & adjusted per your recommendations. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • File:Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951).jpg
    • According to this the image was published in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks -- does this book have any more information on the providence of the photo? Probably meets fair use but I'd like to see if more information can be found on the source.
Insofar as the linkage provided at File:Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951).jpg, the first publication of this photo was in 2001 which predates Skloot's book (though it did appear between her first article for Johns Hopkins and her article in the New York Times. It is one of the only known photos of the subject and I was unable to find its exact provenance beyond its first appearance in the Harvard University Gazette. I was only able to find one other photo of Henrietta online, a photo of her & her husband standing side-by-side. If memory serves me correctly, that particular photo is not available because the rights have been retained by the Lacks family so did not qualify to be able to be used by WP. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photo does turn up elsewhere with the proviso "Henrietta Lacks in the 1940s. Credit Lacks Family, via The Henrietta Lacks Foundation" (2013/New York Times) and "Photo courtesy the Lacks family" (2004/Baltimore City Paper) but it is still the only photo of her so WP:NFCI's #10 & WP:NFCCP apply. I am unsure which proviso, if any, should be used in this article. I will poke around the images pages and get an opinion from one of WP's editor images-experts.
Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Nearly done! -- Shudde talk 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I always do the lead last. I think it is a bit brief. I think a couple of sentences could be mentioned about her life (and particularly death), and also something added on the continuing questions of consent and privacy. As well a sentence on the importance of the cell line in medical research, as well as recognition of Lacks should be added. Also, is there a reason that the fact she was African American mentioned so prominently? The issue of her race is barely mentioned in the main article.

Have added some content. Per WP:LEADLENGTH a one or two-paragraph lead is appropriate for an article of this size.
The reasons for her notability and for the notability of the HeLa cell line should be the most prominent part of the lead but have adjusted the wording to include more details.
Disagree that it is barely mentioned. Besides American society's perceptions about race are important and central to our understanding of this person. African, African-American, black, and white are used a total of 9 times to discuss the facts of Henrietta Lacks's daily existence and the years since her death.
I think the fact that she was African-American is important to understand some of the care she received and for the white privilege exhibited by the medical personnel at the time and for the notoriety her cell line engenders to this day. I doubt that a white person who came into the main doors at JHU's hospital in the same circumstances would have languished in the obscurity that the woman Henrietta Lacks languished in for so many decades. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Is there a reason "23" lacks a page number?
  • There is a bit of inconsistency regarding formatting, some web sources use YYYY-MM-DD format while others use Month Day, Year.
All dates where possible have been converted to YYYY-MM-DD, some were published as "Spring YYYY" or "Year" - those have been left alone.Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
too funny, I changed all the "date="s but didn't touch the "accessdate="s...facepalm. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is youtube a reliable source?
Yes, in this case it is. This is a link to a Documentary & has interviews with people who knew Henrietta including her gynecologist, friends and family-members. Invaluable resource. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources lack publishers (such as 41, 49)
  • Many of the sources are in fact The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks -- could these be standardised. E.g. number 20?
  • Random spotchecks:
    • [4] -- Print source, will WP:AGF
    • [11] Looks reliable. a) I can't see how it supports the previous statement? Have I missed it, please paste the relevant text from the source to help me, sorry! b) source supports this. c) source supports this d) supports quoted text, but not the first part of the sentence. "After they were put into mass production" implies that they were in high demand because they had been put into mass production, but it was in fact the other way around.
I'm a little confused by what statements you are referring to^^...
Agree that the term mass production not quite fitting - adjusted.Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • [13] -- only supports the he knew the Lacks family. Also could this ref be merged with [1]?
I am going to try to amalgamate the various links to Skloot's book, see notes for Ref#20
    • [20] -- AGF because print source, but can this be merged also?
This ref is to a specific page in a paperback edition, I do not have access to that version and hesitate to change it but it does seem like the pagination is the same as the other refs. Also, some of the sourcing is done in a Harvard style which always gives me fits. I'll try to figure out how to link all the Skloot/2010 refs but would also like to include an URL when possible - some of the book is available through Google books, some content is available through that excerpt.Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • [29] -- Doesn't support quote, supports next part about Roland Pattillo organising the annual conference.
Deleted extraneous reference,adjusted.
    • [35] -- link is dead, do we have an archive url?
replaced that source, wayback machine not working for some reason.
    • [36] -- Source supports sentence.
    • [41] -- Better description of source needed. Publisher? This doesn't support the statement.
Fixed. I am certain that Curtis' documentary received an award, but I can't find a ref for it so have deleted the mention. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • The External links section seems quite long to me, are all links neccessary (per WP:EXTERNAL. I'm particualrly thinking of those that violate WP:ELNO criteria 1. For example we have a link to the doco The Way Of All Flesh, yet there is a link to this in the references.
Done.
  • I would also ask the nominator to review the further reading section, and make sure it meets like criteria laid out at WP:FURTHER (I'll leave this up to you).
Perhaps it is too long but I am uncomfortable deleting any of the titles. They re not utilized in the article, are published in a wide range of publications and possibly provide information or opinions not referenced by this article. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overall

Overall I think the article is in good shape. Many of my comments are rather picky. The big things for me are the lead (which needs expansion), the popular culture section, some important questions about the Ethical issues raised, and the sources (which is very important). So my main issues are with criteria 1 and 2. I really enjoyed the article -- it's on a very important subject. The "Medical and scientific research" was particularly clear and well written, and was free of jargon which made it quite easy to read! I'll check back in about a week (it's a busy time of year for me), but if you have any questions do ping me. I'll try to answer them, but it may take a few days. Thanks. -- Shudde talk 15:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shudde: I think have answered your major concerns. If there's something I've missed, would you mind putting it down here at the end of your review so I can figure out what is fixed and what is not. I think the major thing is possibly amalgamating all the Skloot book-references into a single ref. I am not sure it is possible. Some of the links I think go to online excerpts - it's nice to make more material available to the reader who might not have access to the actual source. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave all my comments here, to try and make things a bit easier for you.

  • I see that you added notes. These are probably more detail than I was thinking (which is okay), but I do think they solve the problem I envisaged.
Good. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree on the overlinking but can live with it.
  • " that they reproduced at a higher rate" -- than what? Other tissues, other cancerous cells?
Fixed. And, yeah, these cells are immortal - they do not die. They are the first to do so...I don't think any other cell lines even come close to their vigor. Next to the single celled mitochondria that developed on the Earth some billion of years past, these cells are some of the most important cells in human history. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again about the "roller-tube technique", what is this, could we have an appropriate wiki-link if it's important enough to keep in the article?
The roller-tube technique gets extensive mentions in Ref#21, but you want more of an explanation... There is no WP article about it, there is no section that I can find within WP's pages that would suffice for what you are asking for. Placed content within Notes section - that should do. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the publication in 2013 the first that published HeLa genetic information? If so this should be stated, if not then why were objections raised only then rather than about previous publications?
? Ummm...yeah. The researchers were going to publish the complete genetic information of Henrietta Lacks', that type of technology, to be able to figure out the complete genetic code of something or someone has only recently become available. Her descendants objected, since, of course, they possess some of that genetic information themselves. It's as if someone broke in to your house and stole something that the family shares in common...the family-members would object. If someone published the genetic information of one of your parents, and this information is clearly identified as your parent's, then they would be stealing information from you without your consent...you possess some of the same genetic information as your ancestors, especially a close relative such as a parent or grandparent.Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing my point. Which was, why in 2013? You mention a specific paper, but fail to mention that it was the first to publish the genome. This explains why the issue was raised then, because it hadn't been sequenced before. -- Shudde talk 10:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was the first complete genome, but not the first public disclosure of genetic information [1] (" researchers have been generating and publishing genetic data on HeLa cells for decades"). -- Shudde talk 11:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in the article under consideration is "In March 2013, German researchers published the DNA code, or genome, of a strain of HeLa cells without permission from the Lacks family." Is that statement unverified? No, it is not. The researchers were going to publish the genome of that cell line and the family objected. I am not sure if it really matters if the publication was the first of the complete genome or not...1)the information was published. 2) The Lacks family objected. 3)An agreement was reached about access to this particular HeLa cell-line's genome. Indeed, regarding if this was there first or not is immaterial...the reference and the article itself don't state that it was. What's important is that the family objected', their concerns were acknowledged and certain policies were put into place to control access to the genome's database. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if researchers do not use the NIH database then they are free to ignore any of the conditions the NIH would otherwise impose? This may be worth mentioning (even in a note).
You are sort of asking me to make a conclusion about something that the article does not mention... I think the facts are laid out in the sentence, that's what the refs say. At this point, I think if people want more information about the HeLa cell line & databases etc. then perhaps they can go to that article. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to come to that conclusion, I'm wondering if someone else has (and published this in reliable source)? -- Shudde talk 11:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. Maybe someone has. There is a multitude of research out in the world about the various HeLa cell lines, about their genetics...this Good Article nominated article cannot deal with them all. It is dealing with the one that the family has some measure of control over, the line that is held in the NIH database. In any case, perhaps that level of detail would be more appropriate in the HeLa article. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2016, HBO announced production on the film that began the summer of 2016." -- still have "summer" (MOS:SEASON). As a New Zealander I particularly dislike this! Also this information is kind of misleading. The reference was from before filming was supposed to have started. If it has started, we need a reference.
Point taken. Have found a source that mentions more specific information and adjusted the sentence to remove the mention of "summer" that troubled you. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the lead. This is particularly important to me. LEADLENGTH is a suggestion, and not a rule. The guideline itself says The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. -- At the moment I find the lead too short (unsatisfying) and don't believe it summarises the topic. I'm also not suggesting that it be extended to the point where it's long and intimidating! At the moment it has no information on several large sections of the article (Personal life, and Recognition) and very little on the Illness section. I agree with you 100% that the HeLa cell line should be the most prominent part of the lead and don't want that to change, but that doesn't mean we can't have any other information on other aspects of her life in there. In my opinion a reader would want the important information on HeLa and the consent issues summarised in the lead, but may actually want to know something about the woman Henietta Lacks as well (otherwise they'd probably just read HeLa). I know that's what I would want.
@Shudde: Please take a look at the present lead. I re-crafted it and think the present version will fulfill your points above. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The African American point also confuses me. The fact that she is African American is mentioned many times in the Personal life section, but other than mentioning the fact that only one hospital in the area treated African American patients, how does anything in there express what you stated above: "I think the fact that she was African-American is important to understand some of the care she received and for the white privilege exhibited by the medical personnel at the time and for the notoriety her cell line engenders to this day. I doubt that a white person who came into the main doors at JHU's hospital in the same circumstances would have languished in the obscurity that the woman Henrietta Lacks languished in for so many decades."
This is not explicit in the article at all, even reading between the lines I couldn't come to this conclusion. Maybe it should be more explicitly mentioned? You've convinced me it's vital to the subject (criteria 3a). There seem to be publications in the Further reading section that discuss this, could they not be used to add something explicit?
@Shudde: I think the added lead addresses your concerns about why African American is important to the article. I realize that other editors might differ on this issue, and not many WP:BIOs contains the person's ethnic/race descriptor in the lead sentence, but this is why it is important:
  • her being black or African-American is mentioned in the Personal life section (where they lived...you don't think in 1940s Baltimore that they could live anywhere they wanted, do you?), mentioned 4 times in the Illness section (she couldn't have gone to the University of Maryland Hospital or Mercy Hospital or Sinai/Hebrew Hospital or The Hospital for the Women of Maryland/Greater Baltimore Medical Center or the Deaton Specialty Hospital/Home or Maryland General Hospital - she was only allowed to go to one hospital in Baltimore...because of the color of her skin. Her care there was the same as she would have gotten anywhere else but just the same...when you are only allowed to go to one hospital for your healthcare, that's an important fact, especially so because there were so many other hospitals in and around 1950s Baltimore), and mentioned once in the Recognition section. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above the fact she was African American was mentioned in places, but nowhere at all does it make clear that (in your own words) I think the fact that she was African-American is important to understand some of the care she received and for the white privilege exhibited by the medical personnel at the time and for the notoriety her cell line engenders to this day. I doubt that a white person who came into the main doors at JHU's hospital in the same circumstances would have languished in the obscurity that the woman Henrietta Lacks languished in for so many decades. If there is good reason to believe that her tissue samples would not have been removed, or that she would have been given greater recognition, or that the whole HeLa story would have proceeded very differently were she white, then this is very important and should be explicitly mentioned. At the moment it's not explicitly mentioned at all (unless I've overlooked something, in which case please just copy and paste the quoted text from the article.). -- Shudde talk 11:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shudde: This seems to be the last bullet-point left (I think...at this point I am not sure.)
You are concerned with the descriptor "African-American" as referring to the person Henrietta Lacks. Is your issue where the adjective appears in that sentence? Or is your issue with the adjective appearing at all within the lead? Some other articles about African-Americans do describe them as African-American in the lead sentence (including Malcolm X, Lena Horne, and Guion Bluford) while some others do not (like Martin Luther King Jr., Bill Cosby, and Katherine Johnson). It seems to be something that is left up to the individual article and its contributors. I need to understand your specific objection, if your objection is to including it in the lead sentence or if you think the information shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section at all and let the various mentions - of black members of the Lacks family/black patients/African American communities/African Americans - stand on their own merit. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Here's the deal... My comments above, that you highlighted in green, are part of my musings in answer to your question about the Lead: "Also, is there a reason that the fact she was African American mentioned so prominently? The issue of her race is barely mentioned in the main article." I was answering your question about why African-American should be part of the subject's description in the lead - the information was already present in the article - that's all, but it seems like you trying to make me put my own words into the article. Tissues are taken from patients all the time, the ethnic background or the perceived race of the donor frankly doesn't seem to matter all that much. (To see what I mean, take a look at the Wikipedia List-article about contaminated cell lines - we know virtually nothing about the progenitors of those lines.) Once the tissues are taken the doctor/hospital/research facility retains ownership for the most part. (See the new! improved! Ref 27 for further information.) But, this is about an African-American historical figure and people's perceptions and thoughts about the issue and on all of this will differ. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that what you are asking me to do is explicitly delve into very deep subject matter, all sorts of sociological/political/moral/ethical/human rights issues. I am thinking that these issues are already dealt with within the present article content but you are not satisfied with its present state regarding these various issues...ok. Well I will get to it when I can, might be a while. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Content is now adjusted per my replies elsewhere. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can do what you are asking me to. The source I am relying on predates any of the other ones I mentioned and there is no "courtesy of" mentioned there. I guess I'll have to add a note or something re: the fact that this photo appears elsewhere on the internet with the various provisos?... Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I adjusted the File's information at its WP-Page and added the other "courtesy of"s there. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than sources (which I'll check again soon), if it's not mentioned in my bullet points above then I consider it resolved. Thanks for dealing with it so promptly. -- Shudde talk 10:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • Yeah sorry it's [14]a that I had problems with. Couldn't find where in the source it supported the statement On August 8, 1951, Lacks, who was 31 years old, went to Johns Hopkins for a routine treatment session and asked to be admitted due to continued severe abdominal pain. She received blood transfusions and remained at the hospital until her death on October 4, 1951. -- just asking for clarification
I see your point. The way the refs were placed made it seem like they were referencing the individual sentences. All the information is contained within the 2 refs for that paragraph so I have placed them both at the end of the paragraph where they can both stand in and source the preceding statements.Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some deadlinks per [2] -- these don't need to be fixed from memory (per WIAGA), but it's probably good to do so if possible.
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources still lack publishers [52]
Fixed. had to find the stated publisher on Amazon (and this is a link to the ebook's website). Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [23] requires a page number
It has one. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date format is still inconsistent but this isn't a GA criteria (but would be good to fix)
Fixed. See above. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The youtube link [45] looks like it's not an official channel from a reliable source. How confident are we that it's not a copyright violation? Probably violates WP:COPYVIOCITE. I would remove unless you are confident that it's not a violation.
It is not the filmmaker's official channel but it is the official channel for Dance-Tech TV. This 1998 documentary has been available from the dance-tech tv channel since 2012 but I have gone ahead and substituted the AdamCurtisFilms channel's link for it so it is now fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How sure are we this is an official channel? There is nothing indicating it's official. Does he link to it from [3]? I'm not confident that channel is official. -- Shudde talk 11:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
? I don't understand your aversion to using this YouTube reference...all it was doing was backing-up the fact that 1)Adam Curtis made a 2)BBC documentary called 3)The Way of All Flesh but I've changed the reference to Adam Curtis' blog on the BBC.Co.uk website. (By the way, this fact is also referenced in Curtis' article here on WP). I also found it cited elsewhere:
  • on the BBC.co.uk website but the title is mangled etc and so did not use it: BBC "Genome".
  • on Indiewire, a well-regarded source for film news and information: here. (The indiewire URL also provides the full documentary.)
  • An additional point is that Rebecca Skloot mentions the documentary extensively in her book.
One last note on this: It is absolutely vital to include a viable link to the documentary somewhere within this article because it is the only audio-visual record we have of many of Henrietta's family and friends - the people who actually knew her - talking about her (since the movie was made, many of these people have died). And that is what the article is about, this woman. It is important to this article that the people who knew her get at least some historical say in her story, her narrative. I have therefore included the link under "External Links". Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Think that's all. The main points are the lead, information on why her race is so important, and a couple of things with the sources. Otherwise we're basically done. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 11:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shudde: I believe the issues you were concerned about have now been dealt-with. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shudde: Left some additional responses re: your concerns. Please let me know if these various issues have been dealt with to your satisfaction. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: Hey, just letting you know that I've seen your message. I haven't had a chance to go through everything, but I did read the lead (which looks very good). The only other thing is citation 27 doesn't have a page number -- I knew there was a ref somewhere without one! I'll get this done just as soon as I have an hour free to spend on-wiki. Thanks for bearing with me. -- Shudde talk 10:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've made some more comments. See page history for my comments. -- Shudde talk 11:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: I'll just leave my comments here because it's probably easier for both of us. I think you've misinterpreted some of my comments, so they may not have been clear and I'll try and rephrase them.
  • I asked why her race was so prominent in the lead, and you replied (see much earlier). Your reply indicated that her being African American was very important to the whole HeLa story (important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence) and you gave me a brief explanation for why you think so. I then asked for you to include this information more explicitly in the article, at no time was I asking you to insert your own words into the article, rather if this view was supported by reliable independent secondary sources then it should be included in the article (using such sources), if the view is not supported by them, then your original reply to me was not satisfactory. I hope this is clear. If her race is important then the article should state why. Other than the fact she could only attend one hospital, it still does not do this. I think it's something that could easily fall under criteria 3a.
  • Why the privacy concerns were raised in 2013, 62 years after Lacks died, rather than earlier, is also something that could have been included. Yes there was a publication in 2013, at the moment the quote is In March 2013, German researchers published the DNA code, or genome, of a strain of HeLa cells without permission from the Lacks family. But this wasn't really unusual was it (publishing HeLa genetic information)? A lot of HeLa genetic information had been published before this, and without the families permission I assume. The last part of the sentence "without permission from the Lacks family" makes it seem this was somehow exceptional (not to have permission), when in fact it was normal. And is the fact that the researchers were German really important? I would seriously consider just adding a little bit more context to all this, even if it's already mentioned in the HeLa article.
  • This is the only point that needs addressing before passing. Please read WP:COPYVIOCITE if you still have not. If you do you'll understand my objections to external links that may be copyright infringements. Here are selected quotes from the policy ... editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: ... material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. (emphasis my own). So many of the points you've made are irrelevant. If it's a copyright violation we don't link to it, end of story, it doesn't matter how important we think the documentary is. If you can actual evidence that the youtube channel is official and not a copyright violation then please provide it, but at the moment www.youtube.com/user/AdamCurtisFilms/about doesn't say anything, and I haven't found any proof anywhere else (BBC "Genome" can be edited by anyone so is unreliable, and indiewire linking to it doesn't mean it's official either). This link should be removed or actual evidence the youtube channel is official provided. Do that and we are finished! -- Shudde talk 10:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've removed the youtube link, which I assume means you've not been able to find something verifiable that confirms the video is legally licensed. I'll pass the article now as that was my final objection. Thanks for your patience and hard work. The article is great and I think the review has improved it (hopefully you agree). Congratulations! -- Shudde talk 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary is posted in multiple places and from reliable sources but, sadly, Curtis apparently doesn't have a confirmed Official Channel. Regarding possible licensing problems, it is curious that Curtis has not issued any kind of takedown notice (which are fairly easy for creators to enact) for the postings on YouTube - for whatever reason, the licensing is simply not very strictly managed. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment. Why 2013? Because that's when the publication of the complete genome happened. You think the phrase "without the Lacks family permission" should be removed. Ok. Done (along with some additional c/e). Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment. You consider the link to be a copyvio... Removed. By the way, in Ref 45 Mr. Curtis posts the complete documentary on his BBC blog. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't link to the youtube video -- a different source is embedded. I think you're starting to flog a dead horse here -- there is no evidence it's a legally licensed video on youtube, and because of that we have no discretion over whether we can link to it. -- Shudde talk 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't stating that the link/player Mr. Curtis used was to any of the various youtube videos of the documentary (that didn't have the needed & valid licensing for WP usage - point taken). I was just saying that I am happy Mr. Curtis himself has published the documentary online to his BBC blog so people can access its content (especially the important interviews with the people who knew Henrietta Lacks but who have died since the documentary was made). That's all. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the article at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Medical people and institutions but if you think there is a more appropriate place please move it. -- Shudde talk 17:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henrietta_Lacks/GA2&oldid=1136273261"