Wikipedia:Peer review/Frances Oldham Kelsey/archive1

Frances Oldham Kelsey

Requesting peer review as step towards Featured Article Status - I feel the article, while brief, meets the FA standards. --Trödel 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from repeating the automated suggestions I have very little to add, It is well-written, concise, and comprehensively referenced. I think it will struggle in FAC review though, because of the length. Some comments:

Thalidomide is capitalized once and lowercase the rest of the time.
Does Sulfanilamide need to be capitalized? If it does, it possibly links to the wrong article (doesn't make much sense in this context)
It would be good to replace some instances of "Kelsey" and "Geiling" in the second section with "he" or "she" for readability.
The "Early career and marriage" section is perhaps a little too short to merit its own section, but it is hard to see how you could rearrange it, as it doesn't fit well in either the preceding or following sections
Although thalidomide has its own article, a little background and some relevant detail wouldn't go amiss - for instance the manufacturer (Grünenthal?) isn't even mentioned by name and the purpose of the drug isn't explained.
A bit more detail on her role in withholding approval would be helpful. Was it solely her responsibility? Was the additional information ever provided? What form did the pressure from the manufacturer take? Perhaps some more detail on what the English study involved.
The last section is very brief. I suspect there is more detail that could be added here (perhaps by combining the awards section as two of these are awarded late in her career).
There are a couple of sentences that would benefit from copyediting. For example: "Kelsey returned to her work at the FDA.", "..continued to work" would be better here unless you can point to her leaving the FDA earlier.

Hope this helps.- Yomangani ^talk 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - I will work on these suggestions over the next few days - my biggest concern for FAC - is the length - --Trödel 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the length of the article is just fine. The FAC criteria states only that an article needs to be of "appropriate length", not some specific number of kBytes. Just adding bloat to meet some ill-defined quota doesn't make for a great article, IMO. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - I am against bloat - however, as I suspected there is more to the story and to the life of Kelsey - I have been researching offline and found one good source of additional information about Kelsey's motivations and the other details behind the thalidomide application, and am looking for more about the remainder of Kelsey's career at the FDA - as such a prominent person early on - and one of only 6 doctors on staff at the time of the passage of the legistlation - it stands to reason she had an impact - I just need to find good sources to verify that hunch :) --Trödel 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't suggesting padding. A short article can meet the standards for FA but it can raise questions of comprehensiveness that don't come up as often with long articles. Yomangani ^talk 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True - that will be a better goal anyway - to make sure the article is comprehensive --Trödel 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]