Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Grave robbery in the United Kingdom/1

Grave robbery in the United Kingdom

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: List as a Good article One of the rare cases when an article failed gets a full review here. The article appears to meet or exceed all the GA criteria AIRcorn (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Axl just failed Grave robbery in the United Kingdom with the rationale "You clearly have no intention to collaborate to improve the article." This, after I reverted his short series of edits that, in my opinion (as someone most familiar with this topic), removed important information from the article's lead section and introduced several grammatical mistakes.

In the review, his observations are that the lead section is too long in comparison to the rest of the article, and that the common noun resurrectionists requires quotes. I can find nothing in WP:LEADLENGTH which suggests that this article's lead is too long. It contains only pertinent information, but more importantly, Axl offered no guidance on what he thinks is spurious. For those who are unfamiliar with the topic, the lead tells why the practice occurred, its legal background, why the practice became more popular, the public, medical, judicial and elite opinion on the practice, the popular reaction, and how the practice was brought to an end.

This is a complicated topic spanning well over a century of social and legal history; to be asked simply to "shorten the lead" without any rationale is rather insulting. Furthermore, guidance on lead length is just that - guidance. There are no fixed rules.

I'm somewhat familiar with the GA process, having reviewed quite a few articles myself, and having also submitted more than a few for consideration. This type of "nose out of joint" reaction to my refusal to follow instructions makes me think that in future, I'll just head over to FAC, where I'll not have to deal with such idiocy. Parrot of Doom 19:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to take on this GA assessment. I have a copy of Richardson, Ruth (1987). Death, dissection, and the destitute. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7102-0919-3. (And other sources, because this is a subject that interests me.) Although I work mainly at FAC, I understand the GA criteria and think the nominator and I can quickly achieve consensus. I will have time to do this tomorrow (Sunday 3 Feb) if the nominator agrees. Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, yours is a name I trust without question. Parrot of Doom 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promote

This article meets all the GA criteria. It is engaging, exceptionally well written and referenced. I have taken the opportunity to verify the facts attributed to Richardson's book since I have a copy, and found no issues with close-paraphrasing or inaccuracy (apart from my comment below). Specific comments:

Is "a handful of corpses" the best choice of words? The expression is used twice (no deal breaker).
I think a reference is needed here, "In 1721, contracts issued by the Edinburgh College of Surgeons included a clause directing students not to become involved in exhumation, suggesting, according to historian Ruth Richardson, that students had already done the exact opposite", although it is covered by the one given after the following sentence, it's a strong statement that requires clear verification. Also, unless the page numbering of my copy of Richardson differs, this information is on pages 54 to 55, not 52. Graham Colm (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments, we have Malleus to thank for that (my writing before I met him here was atrocious). A "handful" is used because I've found conflicting data on the number of bodies available. IIRC, some sources say 6, others 10. Is there a synonym that conveys the same information, but remains vague? I've just got in from work so I'll address the other point once I've had some tea. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "less than a dozen", but having thought about it, "a handful" conveys the meaning well. Graham Colm (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the cite thing, it's one of those Wikipedia annoyances that doesn't let you hover over the cite to reveal what text it covers. So I merged the lot and put them at the end of the paragraph. I've also explicitly cited Richardson's opinion, as you suggested. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is close to FA standards. From a conversation that I have had with the nominator on the article's Talk Page, I know that there is more he wishes to add when the sources are available to him. The Lead adequately covers the salient points, and given the article's FA potential is of adequate length. I understand that the subject is grave robbing and not anatomy, but perhaps a sentence or two could be added later to stress the importance of the work of the pioneer anatomists to modern medicine. This aside, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]