Wikipedia:Peer review/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis/archive1

Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis edit

Comprehensive article with lots of references; what could it use to be a Featured Article? I also wanted to know if summarizing the scientific studies and merging the conclusion with it (as done in User:Chaser/sandbox) would be the right direction to go? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the external links could be converted to footnotes. WP 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid someone would say that. :"D Will do, thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on this article. Here are some more detailed comments for you:

NCI workshop

This section needs a bit more exposition (i.e. explaination of who the people are and which study is which). I know the lead does that as well, but there's enough different people and things that it can get confusing.

Added Melbye's name for Denmark study and name of presenter.

Pro-life bias, para 1

"These advocates rebut by stating that their ABC information is for the benefit of women's health and to provide informed consent, but they ignore potentially higher and more immediate health risks associated with pregnancy". Second clause seems to break NPOV without a citation; who says they ignore risks? I may have misinterpreted who "they" were, as it's not entirely clear from the passage.

Pretty sure I've seen it several times, can't find it so its gone. The following paragraph provides the important counter point anyway.

Scientific studies, para 1

"ABC studies have been conducted since 1957, [9] but this covers recent ABC research history". What does the "this" refer to? The article? If so, why doesn't the article cover the entire history of studies?

Yes the article. Provided rationale in article, also the entire history is not provided for length considerations.

Try making that explicit and see if you think it reads better, i.e. "...since 1957, but this article covers...". I find "this" generally needs to be followed by a noun indicating what in refer s to. --jwanders^Talk 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added article, do you think adding section would clarify, as in "this article section" or even changing "article" to "section"? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific studies, para 2

Para should be made clearer and punctionation improved (e.g. "and a (95%...". Quote results briefly then focus on their meaning; details of confidence intervals can be left in that article.

Tweaked, hopefully enough. Disagree on confidence interval (CI), I've read the lead there and still don't understand what I've just read. A clear understanding is essential for a reader interpret the numerous numbers within the ABC article. Going to the CI article to understand CI is a significant interuption in reading flow of the ABC article.

Yes, that's much better now. I'll have to add the CI article to my to do list! --jwanders^Talk 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confounding factors and hormones

The list in the middle of this section seems out of place.

Turned into a paragraph.

Melbye, para 3

Reference to oral contraceptives as "the pill" is unprofessional. Also the last sentence in this para appears to be editorialising; cite someone who brought up that point in the debate, if you can.

Hadn't considered that, changed. Also just recently added a link that discusses the issue of birth cohort adjustments for Melbye. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howe, para 2

Last sentence would read better as, "Eventually the Britain-based International Journal of Epidemiology published it in 1989."

Changed.

Response bias, para 1

"CJD" alluded to without prior description; grammar issue in third sentence;

Removed. Underreporting not overreporting is what is at issue for ABC.

Other comments

Very good lead.

Took a little negotiation and head scratching. I would prefer it be three paragraphs for aesthetics. (merge 1st and 2nd paragraphs) What do you think?

I'm torn. I like the directness of the 1st para, but then the 2nd is too short. I've tried merging them; what do you think? --jwanders^Talk 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, footnotes-style would be nice; but as it's easier, coverting the lead footnotes to html style would suffice.

I'll do it over the next couple days.

Is "pro-lifer" an accepted term? Smacks of being unprofessional to me.

Changed.

I find I don't like in-text references (e.g. "The ongoing and incremental legal challenges to abortion by pro-life groups is documented in Frontline's The Last Abortion Clinic." or "See Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill by Chris Kahlenborn, MD (ISBN 0966977734) for an extended argument from the pro-life perspective."). I know of no guideline or policy against them though, so that might just be me ;-)

Changed the whole section to refs, but book mention is unchanged for now.

I'm not sure the Daling quote, though powerful, furthers the article.

I'd disagree, precisely because it is powerful. It serves as an authoritative reminder people on both sides of the political divide have played politics with this issue. That is an essential meme I want readers to take from the article.

Good job walking the NPOV line, especially considering the subject matter; I kept thinking the article was starting to lean one way or the other, but then something would always bring it back again.

Many thanks. Truly wonderful to hear that. I would humbly request you say exactly that on User:SOPHIA, User:Pro-Lick and User:Alienus talk pages. As they have helped fine tweak the weight of the article. Although as of now, it would appear they have all left Wikipedia, perhaps such a comment would encourage them to constructively rejoin the project.

I haven't examined any of the sources, which a FAC review would entail.

Heh, there are a bunch of 'em.

There are a lot of short paragraphs (i.e. <4 sentences). These will likely be a issue if you go to FAC.

I'd have to plead guilty on that... my 800x600 screen biases towards shorter paragraphs.

--jwanders^Talk 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been of great help. Could I have your opinion on suggestions implemented in User:Kchase02/sandbox. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do an indepth comparison of the two versions, but at this point I'm not sure it added benefit of the Kchase version warrants the inventing of appendices on WP. I would say that the Scientific studies section there could be worked into the current article in order to provide a gentler introduction to the hardcore scientific debate that follows. --jwanders^Talk

That could indeed work. Oh, and no need for indepth comparison, its essentially a pre-peer reviewed version with the scientific section summarized and made into an appendix. The thinking was the article flows nicely then gets interupted by a long hardcore science section. Making it an appendix could improve the flow. I'm not sold on the idea, so trying to get a consensus on the way to go. Now we have a third option! Are you always this good? :"D Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the article, particularly the "Scientific studies" section, which needs little if no work. My advice is minor:

The style of referencing should be standardized. Some references are given in a formal, APA style, while others are cited in the manner of web links.
The article would be serviced by thorough Wikification. Many concepts remain unlinked.
The article relies too heavily upon the "ABC" acronym. It should be substituted in some places for "abortion-breast cancer" to make the article seem more like an encyclopaedic in tone.

-Severa (!!!) 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done refs, may need some tweaking as I've changed the reference style from original examples. I'll have a look at Wikification and ABC issue tomorrow. Thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the acronym issue. The book I'm currently reading continuously refers to government agencies by this form of shorthand, so, really, I'm leaning toward thinking it's just my own preference. -Severa (!!!) 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While not essential to the article, as it is very informative as it is, images would definitely help toward FA:

Comparative charts or graphs to represent data from various studies.
A diagram to illustrate the process of cellular differentiation in the breast during early pregnancy. Perhaps with special emphasis on the difference between uninterrupted growth during full-term pregnancy and interruption via abortion.

-Severa (!!!) 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]