Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/David Kelly (weapons expert)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Kelly (weapons expert)[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

An article I expanded some time ago that has nicely matured in the last couple of years. Dr K deserves a decent, honest consideration as a decent, honest man. The aim is an FAC, so any and all comments with that in mind are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Here's some things to start with:

  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References", so they shouldn't be lumped under the same section as them.
  • Unless you end up using the sources under "Further reading" within article text, I don't see any point in listing those.

Best of luck getting the page to FA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

I, for one, am glad to see you back. Here are some things that jump out:

  • The paragraphs of the lead seem to be a little unbalanced. I would try to trim down the the first paragraph to the kernel, the core, and move some of the specifics to the second or third paragraph.
  • Pasechnik is referred to as "the senior Soviet biologist and bioweapons developer". "The" implies that he was the best the Soviets had. Is that true? Should it be changed to just "a" or could his name be moved after his job title?
  • "in what was then called Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)" --> "in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)" Redundant. The "now" implies that the name is changed.
  • Yep - changed
  • "The team faced obstruction by the Russians" passive voice.
  • "official reports of the visit" should that be a singular "report"?
  • "Weapons of Mass Destruction" shouldn't be capitalized.
  • "UN" --> I know it's very basic, but I think we should first spell out "United Nations (UN)"
  • "discussed the use of WMD" Should that be "WMDs"?
  • A moot point. The correct plural would be "Weapons of mass destruction", and the WMD article seems to favour that (although there are a couple of "WMDs" in there too). I'll see what FAC commentators say (or other PR attendees). - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel as though the first words of the bullet points should be capitalized
  • Blocked off quotes are used a but too frequently. I would try to condense and integrate at least some into the body.
  • I've merged one into the text and I'll have a look at the others. What there is are either Kelly's own words, and/or important points where the wording is key, but I'll go over again and see if there are any more. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the current "Notes and references". That's actually my preference on bios.

Kelly is more than deserving of an FA - it's some sketchy stuff. I'll drop some more comments later. ~ HAL333 03:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from HAL[edit]
  • Regarding the two bullet points, what's the difference between "Military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons..." and "Command and control arrangements in place to use chemical and biological weapons"? If there isn't a substantial difference, I might combine the two bullet points into a single sentence integrated with the body.
  • These are different points (and are both quotes from the report): one is about the plans to use it on its own population, one is the command structure that linked it directly to Saddam. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "none of them referred to the 45-minute claim" What's the significance of this? I'm a bit confused
  • "UNSCOM inspectors were readmitted to the country and information was provided on the Iraqi WMD programme" (I assume its the Iraqis providing this info?) As it is, a comma is needed after "country" as it is followed by an independent clause. However, I think "were readmitted to the country and were provided information on the Iraqi WMD programme" might work better or some other rewording.
  • Should Newsnight be italicized?
  • Should "At 7:32 am" use "a.m."? I'm not sure myself...
  • According to the journalist Miles Goslett, the report on the Today programme "caused little more than a ripple" of interest; the newspaper article "was of major international significance. It was career-threatening for all concerned if substantiated" These two quotes directly contradict one another...
Disregard. I misread. ~ HAL333 19:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful to link Downing Street at its first use
  • I would mention MacKinlay's party, as is done with the other MPs
  • Could the red and blue dots on the "Key points in the life of David Kelly" map key be blown up a bit? In fact, it's kind of hard to see anything on that map without zooming in on it.
  • ...up to 29 tablets of co-proxamol, an analgesic drug, then cut his left wrist, severing his ulnar artery, with a pruning knife... That's kind of choppy
  • It was subsequently established that neither the knife nor the blister packs showed Kelly's fingerprints on their surfaces I assume it wasn't established before his death... I would remove "subsequently" and maybe add the date that this was determined and who determined it if possible
  • Reworded to avoid "subsequently". It's not clear on the who and when questions: one presumes as part of the police investigation, but that isn't important as much as the information itself is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pathologist called to the scene, Nicholas Hunt" Was he the coroner? That might be more accurate. If not, who called the pathologist in?
  • No, he was the pathologist, not the coroner. In the UK a pathologist is a medical professional who examines the body to establish the medical cause of death. The coroner is a judicial position who listens to all the evidence surrounding a death - including the evidence from the pathologist - to judge where a death is natural or suspicious. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it doesn't interrupt the flow, I might incorporate note q into the body.
  • I think it interrupts it a bit too much. The others who demurred are also briefly covered, so it was a question of balance as much as anything else. Too much of the he-said-she-said back and forth of accusation and refutation would make the paragraph a bit flabby to read. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelly's remains were exhumed in June 2017" Were they moved elsewhere? Cremated?
I just saw Wehwalt's comment on this - I found a Guardian source that says Kelly was reportedly cremated. ~ HAL333 19:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "reportedly cremated", although I think this may be guesswork by the media. There is no reliable source that confirms this one way or the other, and the family have remained tight-lipped on the point (quite rightly, in my opinion!) The Baháʼí faith strongly discourages cremation (although they don't ban it), which also makes it a bit less likely. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. I look forward to seeing this as a FAC in the near future. Cheers, ~ HAL333 17:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Not many comments.
  • It's a bit difficult to follow the first paragraph beyond the first sentence, it seems a bit in medias res. Can we start with Kelly's involvement in the report and build from there?
  • "In 1971 he received his doctorate in microbiology for his thesis ..." I don't know how it is in Britain, but in the US, doctoral theses say "in partial fulfillment of the requirements" for the degree. This makes it sound like it was the only requirement.
  • Do we need to have the dates of start and finish of the Iraq war twice?
  • "Mangold states that "most likely explanation is that he learned from a well-meaning friend at the Ministry of Defence that the BBC had tape-recorded evidence which, when published, would show that he had indeed said the things to Susan Watts that he had formally denied saying"." Should there be a "the" after the "that" before the quotation?
  • "The former leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard, and the former Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker, both think Kelly was murdered.[173]" I might change this to the past tense to future-proof it, both are getting on in years, as are we all, alas.
  • "Kelly's remains were exhumed in June 2017." And then what?
Seems good. Welcome back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Wehwalt - all sorted (one of them by a third party) except the lead, which I'll work on prior to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

On the prose, every time I boggled at a spelling I found the OED was with you. I am not going into the capitalisation of job titles (the (p/P)resident of the United States, the British (p/P)rime (m/Minister), as that way madness lies. As to the proportions of the article I looked long and hard and I think it is right that after a concise – but sufficient – canter through his early years, the bulk of the article is about the Iraq inspection, the dodgy dossier, the BBC and Kelly’s death. I think the article is ready for FAC Please ping me when you get to there. (And perhaps give us a less doom-laden article next time?) Tim riley talk 22:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAC peer review sidebar[edit]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)/archive1&oldid=1130078473"