Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/And the Band Played On

And the Band Played On

Would like to see what more should be included to get this eventually to GA or FA status. --Moni3 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Belovedfreak

OK, here are some thoughts...
Lead

• "The title of the book appears to be..." really needs a source, otherwise it's speculation.
• "A review called it..." - which review? Could do with naming the reviewer & publication eg. "In a review for the Library Journal, Judith Eannarino called it..."
  • Done, both. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Subject

• I would maybe say who Bill Kultz is to give some relevance/context. "Journalist Bill Kultz gave the keynote speech..."
  • He's not really a journalist. He's kind of a talking head. He's the host dude on American Justice on A&E. So I titled him "television personality." I'm not quite sure what he was doing in 1983. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moin3
    • Oops, I mean Bill Kurtis. I didn't know who he was, just read "journalist" on his page, but that's fine now.--BelovedFreak 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• "Sisyphean task..." POV maybe? I would just go with "were given the task"
  • Shilts said it, not me. I changed it to reflect that. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
    • Ah, I didn't realise that was Shilt's word. That's clearer now, but it might just work putting "Sisyphean" in quotes, I dunno...--BelovedFreak 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The gay community

• Your 1st mention of IV drug users could do with being written out in full or linked, or both. Like maybe "Intravenous (IV) drug users" and then later on just put "IV drug users".
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• The 1st sentence needs a citation, (not the book itself).
  • Well, it's what the book states. It's what was known at the time. It's Shilts' words and his timeline. Should I instead rewrite the sentence to reflect his reporting? --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
    • Hmmm... I'm not sure.. I guess you could say something like "according to Shilts", but if you're saying it in the context of what was known at the time generally, then it could use an independent citation.--BelovedFreak 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• The sentence beginning "There was a marked difference..." is quite difficult to read. Maybe you could use quotes for "before" and "after" or something.
  • I've always disliked that sentence. I wrote it. Go figure. I rewrote it again.--Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
    • Yeah that's better.--BelovedFreak 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The medical community

• "Some would realize their life's course..." - like who in particular?
  • Done.--Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• "grisly" - possibly POV, or at least a bit sensational.
  • This is a word used often by Shilts. I just have to find where. Give me a couple days. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
    • Heh, ok.--BelovedFreak 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• "hospital staff were often reluctant to handle AIDS patients" - citation? Even if it's from the book.
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

The political and governmental agencies

• "Shilts is often quoted as claiming..." - an example?
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

[edit] The news media

• "Shilts was himself..." - "himself" is maybe unnecessary - I would just say "Shilts was..."
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• "he repeatedly blasted..." a bit informal? "he repeatedly criticised" might be better
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• "because it didn't affect people who mattered..." - could maybe make it clearer that it is SHilt's opinion that the media thought these people didn't matter.
  • Added an instance there and expanded the section on the Tylenol Crisis. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

• "Many stories called AIDS a "gay plague"..." - citation? - also which stories? give some examples if possible.
• the sentence beginning "In fact, Shilts recounts more than once..." is a little confusing. Maybe it's just me being stupid/tired but I didn't really get it. Plus, I would take out "In fact" - it's not really necessary. I would also change "how much is not reported" to "how little is reported".
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• "prompted mass hysteria across the nation..." citation? "Across the nation" could really be "across the United States" just to be clear. That whole sentence could do with a citation - the media erroneously reporting etc.
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Criticism and recognition

• "contrary to the expectations of Shilts himself" - citation?
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• The second paragraph has 6 citations which seems a little excessive & people will not like it. I've had this problem in articles before and I'm not really sure what the solution is. Maybe doing one <ref> tag with the 6 citation templates in? I'm not sure, I'll have to experiment...
  • Shifted it a bit. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• "the New York Times commented..." who at the New York Times? They often have several writers writing reviews for the same thing, so could do with a name as the opinion may not be representative of the newspaper.
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
• "Gay groups also criticized..." - do we know which groups in particular?
  • Done. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Gaetan Dugas as "Patient Zero"

• 1st sentence is a bit unwieldy - any way of avoiding repetition of "who"?
• Sentence beginning "It doesn't re-examine the Dugas story" is also a bit long.
• I found the whole paragraph quite difficult, not having read the book, again maybe just me, I don't know. Maybe you could start by saying what patient zero means, then mention Dugas, then how it was discussed in the book, Shilts' assumptions etc.
• The paragraph could do with some more citations.
  • Give me a couple days on this one. This wasn't my addition to the article, but let me see if I can find better citations. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

After publication

• "he got the HIV-positive diagnosis" - maybe a tad informal? I would maybe put "was diagnosed HIV positive". But, that could just be a personal preference.
  • He was probably diagnosed soon after he made the appointment. He just requested not to be told until the book was finished. Sounds like semantics, but in that chronological order, it's more accurate. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
    • Ok, fair enough. --BelovedFreak 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• "Upon his death he was eulogized for his work in And the Band Played On by Cleve Jones..." is not entirely clear. Makes it sound a bit like Cleve Jones eulogised him in a piece called And the Band Played On. I know it's obvious from the whole article, but the sentence is a little confusing.
  • Restructured it a bit. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

• Sometimes it says "Shilts reported" or "according to Shilts" but often it doesn't so it's sometimes hard to know which bits are findings from the books and which should be cited by independent sources. I apologise if I've asked for citations from bits that are clearly summarising the book. Anyway, hope this helps. I really hope someone else takes a look at it. --BelovedFreak 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Every part of the article under the "Subject" heading comes from the book. I included references. In claims I know sound POV, I made sure to statet that Shilts reported it. --Moni3 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
    • Ok, that's fine. I guess that's the way it should be with non-fiction/documentary stuff. As I said I'm not that familiar with this type of article, but that makes sense to me now. --BelovedFreak 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)