Talk:World Health Organization/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FocalPoint (talk · contribs) 14:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC) A few notes: Several references lack date of publication. Based too much on information from WHO itself. Too big for my taste, but this is personal tase, not necessarily according to GA criteria. Membership section: Pleasant to read but mentions a few small countries - why these and not others? Overall a good article which can be better. --FocalPoint (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not intended to be the only comment for this review. Others reviewers, feel free to continue. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

There are several unaddressed cleanup tags on this article: Wikipedia articles needing clarification (March 2012), Articles containing potentially dated statements (2002, 2009, 2010, 2012) I have asked the reviewer whether they plan to complete the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The potentially dated statements come from the use of the {{as of}} and while they show up in the cleanup listing they are most likely not required of a good article (although it could be a good idea to see if the older ones can be updated). AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry – I didn't notice this review had been undertaken. I'll get to it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone point out where clarification is requested? I can't find the tag. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure but I think ot relates to In 1959, the WHO signed Agreement WHA 12–40 with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which some{who} and The nature of this statement has led some{who} pressure groups. The who tags are gone, but still relavent. AIRcorn (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded that section. As regards the "potentially dated statements", it's a voluntary tagging of statements which will become incorrect – clearly this ought to be most of any article on a current organisation, so it's just choice ones. I couldn't find any newer figures than 2002, but they give an indication, at least. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time seeing this as a serious nomination. Just a quick glance reveals giant issues with the article: formatting is horrible, with content presented more in list-form than in proper prose, referencing depending almost exclusively on a single source, which is the organization itself. I don't think this should have been nominated at all; the improvements needed to get it to GA standard are just way beyond the scope of a GA review. Lampman (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick search: Kelley Lee's The World Health Organization (ISBN 0415370132) is not even mentioned in the article. It's available for preview on Amazon and Google Books, so there's really no excuse not to use it. Lampman (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly that's unnecessarily insulting and should not have been said the way it was. Secondly, it is not borne out by the Good Article criteria: 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources.... It might be you believe that the information presented is not representative of published sources (WP:UNDUE). Given the basic level of the information presented, I cannot see another "side of the story" which should receive attention. The criticisms section is already sourced to alternative sources because WHO's own pages wouldn't do a good job of that. Structural and procedural (eg. aims and methods) notes are not controversial, however, and therefore this isn't a problem. As to reliability, this fundamentally means doubting that the WHO's website is incorrect about details of WHO's operation. I think an exception has to be made here, and it isn't a major one. Per WP:SELFPUB: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. Only the final part is even questionable of that test, and here about half the article is based on sources from WHO itself and suitable areas are demarcated (as above) where such sources would not be acceptable. If you doubt the World Health Organization's published information about itself, then I think seeking wider input would be suitable.

On the point of structure I was left with a difficult task. If you take the information presented in bullet points and put it in prose you get a long paragraph that is difficult to navigate. The article doesn't have the space to elaborate on each of the tasks, so a prose portion is likely to look the same. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists makes it clear that there are plenty of situations where a list might be appropriate and given these reasons I felt it was the best way to present the information.

If you could please drop the tone we can have a proper discussion about what might be the best way of improving the article, if necessary. I am well aware of the criteria and their application. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

I have looked at the first section Establishment and even without going into the references in depth it needs a lot of work. It doesn't really flow and lacks important information that would allow an average reader to follow it. Some specifics below:

Needs some introduction to the League of Nations Health Organization. It currently redirects back to this article, but even if it had its own article it should still have a bit of an introduction here.
Its efforts were hampered by the Second World War, during which UNRRA also played a role in international health initiatives. Expand UNRRA. I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Its efforts at what? What
In February 1946, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations helped draft the constitution of the new body What is the new body. The WHO?
The use of the word "world", rather than "international", emphasised the truly global nature of what the organization was seeking to achieve. How does world rather than international emphasise the truely global nature?
The constitution of the World Health Organization had been signed by all 61 countries... What countries?
The first meeting World Health Assembly finished on 24 July 1948, having secured a budget of US$5 million (then GBP£1,250,000) for the 1949 year. Is the World Health Assembly the name of the first meeting?
Honorifics are to be avoided.
Its first priorities were malaria, tuberculosis, sexually transmitted infections, maternal and child health, nutrition and environmental hygiene. Curing or something similar I hope.

I know the answer to some, if not most of these questions, but they should still be made clear in the text.

Other stuff from a quick glance:

The lists are a serious problem. Not just because prose is preferred, but because they are too close to the source. The objectives are a copy paste of [1]. Of couse if you don't take it from the source it runs the risk of being WP:synth. Much better to have prose.
Current projects is not a great header. It will constatntly need to be updated and runs a real risk of being incorrect.
I have some reservations about the controversies having their own section. Sure there are controversies associated with the WHO and they should be mentioned, but they would be much better incorporated into the other sections.
That brings me to another point, there should be sections on its projects (not just a list under current projects). That would allow the controversies to be presented along with each project. A much better way of structuring the article in my opinion.

It is an important encyclopaedic topic and I commend you for taking it on. FocalPoint (talk · contribs) has asked me to continue the review on my talk page. Unfortunately at this stage I will say it is a fail, but I will allow some time for other commentators on this page to respond. It is an artcile I would be personally interested in getting to GA standard so if you wish I may be able to contribute or offer opinions further down the line. AIRcorn (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will fail it in its current state. Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page when you re-nominate it and if I have time I will re-review it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at its current state it does not satisfy the criteria of a good article. --FocalPoint (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]