Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2017 [1].

Terri Schiavo case

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]

Comments from Anythingyouwant

I got less than ten words into this article before running into problems. Here's how it currently starts: "The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case....." This is a very problematic way to start the article. ‪According to Social Movements and the Transformation of American Health Care, p. 150,‬ by Banaszak-Holl et al. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), "Whereas Cruzan was framed as a right to die case, Schiavo was framed as a right to life case, or a contest between the right to live and the right to die...." What entitles us to re-frame it? Perhaps the most accurate way to look at the Schiavo case is as a case about who gets to exercise the rights of life and death for a person who cannot exercise them herself, and whether disagreement among family members should be resolved by governmental force in favor of life versus death, and in favor of a spouse versus parents. Just starting out by labeling it as a "right to die" case implies from the outset that it was about whether Schiavo should be able to exercise her right to die, which is, uh, not quite neutral IMHO, and an oversimplification also.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be enough to just call it a "legal case", and then lay out the basics? Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That might be a better way to start the article, but "right-to-die" is mentioned ten times in the article. Putting aside footnote 78, "right-to-live" is not mentioned at all. It would be best to address this somewhere in the article, e.g. using the Banaszak-Holl source that I cited above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

There are several spots missing citations, and some of what is cited does not match up with the cited source. For example, "in early 2003 the Schindlers demanded that he share the malpractice money" is cited to a source that states this occurred in 1993
Overall there is considerable use of primary sources - see WP:PSTS
There are considerable inconsistencies in reference formatting
MOS editing needed throughout - linking, ellipses, etc
File:SchiavoGrave.jpg is incorrectly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list the missing and incorrect citations you found?
- What is the proper licensing for the grave picture?
- Considering the substantial issues in formatting and citation, I guess this article should be withdrawn from consideration until issues are corrected. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having read on this further since my initial comment above, I agree that it needs more work. The source formatting is mostly a cosmetic issue that could be fixed during review, but the POV question raised by Anythingyouwant above also needs to be addressed, and frankly I'm concerned that the citation list is filled with news articles and primary source documents, while books (including a couple from academic publishers) are relegated to "further reading". Withdrawing the nomination would give you time to address these issues under less pressure. --RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now)

After a quick read through, my concerns are similar to those above. In addition to the issues raised above by RL0919, I see some PoV questions similar to those by Anythingyouwant, and these are significant.
Overall, the article is unevenly written--parts of it are quite smooth and clear, others very spotty. The one sentence section on the relationship between husband and parents is particularly jarring. Without having mentioned TS's health problems in the lead, jumping into her health concerns immediately is also jarring, especially since there doesn't seem to be consensus on the relationship between her possible bulimia and her cardiac arrest. Consequently, the background section seems to provide background that doesn't flow together. Later, the introduction of the character "obstetrician" is unexpected, for example, when we should have known about him from background.
I'm finding some strange wiki links: for example, intubation|intubated, instead of Tracheal intubation|intubation auntieruth (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV is problematic, I agree. For example, The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case in the United States from 1990 to 2005, involving Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo, a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Schiavo's husband and legal guardian argued that Schiavo would not have wanted prolonged artificial life support without the prospect of recovery, and elected to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo's parents argued in favor of continuing artificial nutrition and hydration and challenged Schiavo's medical diagnosis. The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents, which ultimately involved state and federal politicians up to the level of President George W. Bush, caused a seven-year delay before Schiavo's feeding tube was ultimately removed.
Howabout:

The Terri Schiavo case was a highly controversial legal case in the United States from 1990 to 2005 centered on a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state and her husband and legal guardian, and her parents. The contestants—the woman's husband and legal guardian and her parents—challenged ideas about who gets to exercise the rights of life and death for a person who cannot exercise them herself, and whether disagreement among family members should be resolved by governmental force in favor of life versus death, or in favor of a spouse versus parents.

In 1990, Theresa Marie Schiavo suffered a medical event that was later determined to have deprived her brain of oxygen. Doctors diagnosed her a vegetative state and she was placed on artificial life support. After exploring remedial options, and with the prospect of no recovery, her husband/legal guardian elected to remove her feeding tube and allow her to die. Schiavo's parents challenged the medical diagnosis and filed a counter argument in favor of artificial nutrition and hydration.

Subsequently, a highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges involved 14 appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in federal district court; extensive government intervention at the levels of the Florida state legislature, governor Jeb Bush, the U.S. Congress, and President George W. Bush; and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. The case also spurred highly visible activism from the pro-life movement, the right-to-die movement, and disability rights groups.

Just a thought. But this indicates also the extent to which this article needs revision. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Gonna work on it as soon as I can carve out a little free time. Article hasn't had a major overhaul in 5 years, needs some touch ups before resubmitting Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.