Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. This article has suffered from a lack of clarity about its scope, title and content, and now differs substantially from the (flawed) reviewed version. Positive changes have been made which may have put the article back on track, but work is now needed to ensure the revised article meets the GA criteria. As noted below it (arguably) does not at present due structural issues left over from the overhaul (affecting e.g. 3a, 3b and WP:LEAD), as well as poor prose. The correct thing to do therefore is to delist the article so that it can be renominated by editors determined to make it shine. Geometry guy 00:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text of this article does not correspond with the article's title. I have informed the main editors of my concern and conducted an individual reassessment, but we have not agreed on the matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing "transplantation" to "harvesting" and be done with it. Since they did not even have a donor program until recently, and even now it's not really doing anything, all the "transplants" here can be termed "harvests" without difficulty, since they are harvested from prisoners. That appears to be the only major source of organs. Of course, which prisoners depends on who you ask.... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two areas of the GA criteria that Axl might be challenging. 3(a) "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" or 3(b) "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I feel the article meets 3(a) as it does address the main aspects, and there is extended coverage of the most notable aspects of the topic, which is the global concern over the use of prisoner's organs and the international trading in these organs. The extended coverage is justified as the global concern led to changes in international guidelines regarding organ transplantation and to changes in China's procedures. Where I share Axl's concern is in relation to 3(b) and the section regarding the Falun Gong allegations. The allegations attracted some attention, though not quite as much as the concerns regarding international organ trading or use of prisoners as donors, and nor have these allegations had any impact on global guidelines or China's legislation. The claims are disputed and dubious. By giving so much attention to the Falun Gong allegations this accords them an importance in the article which is inappropriate. Ohconfucius has made admirable reductions to that section; however, it still remains disproportionate. The simple solution of splitting out into a standalone article is in this case made tricky because a standalone article has existed several times, and each time has been merged back into this one. There are ArbCom sanctions related to this situation - [1], and a slow moving discussion moderated by myself between Jayen466 and Dilip rajeev at Talk:Falun Gong/Moderated discussion. An article is being created here - Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report, which when cleaned up can be moved out into mainspace, and then linked to from the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article leaving behind a brief summary of the main points. One of the problems with leaving the Falun Gong allegation section as it stands is that it makes it appear that the main aspect and concerns regarding China's organ transplantation programme were to do with live harvesting. This is an inappropriate reading of the situation. There is no evidence of live harvesting. However, it is considered likely that there is still inappropriate use of executed prisoners as an organ source, and attention directed to the Falun Gong allegations diverts attention from genuine concerns.
Here is the redirect list which shows the standalone articles: [2] - some sample histories:
This situation is a little more tricky than first appears. SilkTork *YES! 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is really much more complicated than appears on the surface, I was waiting until I had more time to respond. ST's explanation encapsulates it better than I could. I think there is scope for the article to grow in a 'healthy' direction, just needs China to be less secretive about this whole transplantation business (or perhaps we just don't know where to go for the info right now). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We would benefit from some more uninvolved opinions. Does anyone object if I invite WikiProject Medicine editors to comment? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from RexxS
I'm commenting here because of the request at WikiProject Medicine. Having read the article for the first time, I'd have to agree with Axl that it focusses more on a single aspect (the controversies ) than I would expect for a Good Article. I looked at the following articles for comparison:
Although I appreciate the problem in finding reliable sources other than for the controversies, I still feel the article falls short of 3a "broad coverage". The lead of the article Organ transplantation contains this paragraph:
  • "Organs that can be transplanted are the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, pancreas, intestine, and thymus. Tissues include bones, tendons (both referred to as musculoskeletal grafts), cornea, skin, heart valves, and veins. Worldwide, the kidneys are the most commonly transplanted organs, while musculoskeleletal transplants outnumber them by more than tenfold."
Compared to the general article, this article concentrates on transplantation of liver and kidneys, and mentions face transplantation. At present it covers "Controversies concerning liver and kidney transplantation in the People's Republic of China" well, but I don't believe that it is in line with my expectations for either 3a and 3b in the GACR under the topic stated in the given title.
To meet this concern, I'd recommend looking carefully at Organ transplantation and seeking to cover more of the topics outlined there.
Two small points: the lead image seems to contradict the phrase "Though the number of transplants fell to under 11,000 annually by 2005" in Background. It is also too small for me to read directly (see MOS:IMAGES and WP:IMGSIZE for justification of a larger chart).
Beyond GA concerns, the lead image contains information only conveyed by visual means (contrary to WP:Accessibility#Images no.3) and needs a text summary. --RexxS (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. Just a quickie about the image: there is a very valid point that the image is too small, and is not supported by text. The article the graph was sourced from surprisingly did not contain it, thus I was unable to create a bigger and better graphic to support the article. I will look for some corresponding raw data. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added (lengthy) alt text as a possibility for screen readers, and resized the lead image to 500px. It's readable to me (just) at that size, and is not too imbalanced in a 1280x1024 window, although at 1024x768 it's a bit cramped. Feel free to revert either or both if you don't think they improve the article. Would you like me to redo the chart to maximise the readability for around 400px wide? Or should I wait to see if you can get the raw data? --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... if you assume that the topic of the article is the article title—that is, that it intends to cover all aspects of organ transplantation, not merely the political ones—then I'd say that it's incomplete. For example, the first-ever successful penis transplantation happened in China, but you wouldn't find that out from reading this article. Technical innovations in that country seem to be given about two and a half sentences, which seems unreasonably small, given that just the incredible Sujiatun allegations (that 6,000 people were secretly housed in a hospital basement, killed by extracting organs, and then cremated) has been given four paragraphs. Normal procedures seem to get short shrift, too.
    Additionally, I personally think that the article would be better organized by subject (e.g., history, cultural issues, rates, technical capabilities and innovations, politics) than by timeline (before 2006, after 2006).
    However, if the article's subject is actually the political issues, then perhaps it should just be given a new title. There's no reason why we can't have a full article on "Organ transplantation in China" alongside a detailed one titled something like "Falun Gong allegations about Chinese organ transplantation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we are all perceiving the same problem, though articulating it in different ways. The article is reasonably broad - broad enough for GA requirements; it could certainly be built upon, though Good Articles aren't meant to be complete or comprehensive - that is a demand more for Featured Articles - rather, they should give an appropriately wide overview of the topic and include the main points. That there are some aspects which are not covered is not a reason for a fail unless those aspects are major. The main focus of attention for organ transplants in China has been the use of prisoners, and the sale of organs on the international market, so it is appropriate that those aspects are given reasonable coverage. The problem with the article is the intense coverage of the Falan Gong allegations which dominate the article and give the impression that is the main aspect; and that is where people's disquiet arises (please note that the Falun Gong allegations are not the same as the international concern over use of prisoners and the international trade - the FG allegations are a different thing, and need to be treated differently). My proposal is that the bulk of the falun Gong material is moved into a stand-alone sub-article, leaving a sentence or two about the allegations, and a link to the sub-article. This would then leave an article which gives an overview of transplanation in China, details on the very notable international concerns regading use of prisoners, etc, current legislation and donor inititives, and some indications of significant transplants such as the face and adding the penis. Changing the title of this article because of the Falun Gong section would only focus more undue attention on those allegations. The allegations are significant in and of themselves, and are deserving of an article because of the attention they have gained, but the allegations are part of a much wider complex, including the political as noted above, and they do sit uncomfortably in this article. SilkTork *YES! 09:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WhatamIdoing: No idea of the real history here, but I think the article on "Falun Gong allegations about Chinese organ transplantation" got shut down because it was being used as a base for political propaganda against the PRC govt, with a bunch of primary sources being used, and FLG people coming to edit heavily etc. Ohconfucius or someone would be able to clarify that a bit better. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I believe the article does satisfy 3a. It is not comprehensive, but it is reasonably broad. The GA criteria does not require the same rigorous depth in coverage as the FA criteria. I do not believe this article satisfies 3b, the Falun Gong allegations are not credible, well-supported, or widely believed. It is a small minority opinion which is given far more detail than would be appropriate for the subject. If it is not possible at this time to split that content off into a sub-article, then the article should be delisted. Aaron north (T/C) 00:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the draft of the Kilgour-Matas report from my userspace to: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report. After about a week there, I will ask an admin to look it over before moving it into mainspace. Because of the article's troubled history, I will put it up at AfD to get a wider response to the notability of the material. If the community consensus is that the material is notable enough for a standalone article, the Falun Gong material in Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China will be reduced to a sentence and readers directed to the Kilgour-Matas article. I feel that reducing the Falun Gong material will address most people's concerns. SilkTork *YES! 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds reasonable to me. If there is a reasonable expectation that this could be resolved with just another couple weeks, then there's no rush to delist. Aaron north (T/C) 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Today, I pruned another 20%+ from the wordcount of the FLG and K&M sections without damaging the article or shifting the balance within that section. I think this is all that is required without needing to create a K&M article; I would still strongly oppose the article in the incubator as being hopelessly problematic. I feel that the report is only notable in the context of this subject, anyway. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      • The Kilgour-Matas report covers both organ transplantation and Falun Gong persecution, so sits uncomfortably in an article on one or other. It has gained some attention from reliable sources and so meets our WP:GNG. The material should sit somewhere on Wikipedia, and a stand alone article seems the more appropriate. As we see here, having it in this article causes problems. Let's test it against the consensus of the Wikipedia community and see what they say. The article would only be POV if it were presented as an argument trying to convince readers that the allegations are true. A neutral and factual article which relays the circumstances and puts them in context would be what Wikipedia aims to do, and what I hope we can achieve. SilkTork *YES! 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will only add that it is obvious that an article on the allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong would in no way run afoul of any relevant Wikipedia policy. Further, it is inaccurate to characterise them as "Falungong allegations." The most prominent proponents of the allegations are not Falungong practitioners. Where is the evidence that these are a minority view, that they are not well-supported (I leave the claim that they are not "widely believed", that is clearly nebulous enough to mean anything)? An article on the topic has occupied the front page of the Weekly Standard in the United States. The U.N. rapporteurs have requested the communist Party to provide them with information, and admonished them for not doing so. —Zujine|talk 06:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is not a "wikipedia policy" which forbids the inclusion of all of that detail, but the inclusion of that entire section would likely prevent it from retaining its status as a good article. The article is about "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China". The main concern/criticism is related to the use of organs from executed prisoners who have "consented". There is comparitively very little discussion about or credence given to the harvesting of organs from unwilling live victims. There is nothing preventing the editors from disregarding the GA criteria and including a large article on that topic within this subject, but it will likely cause the subject to fail on criteria 3b. Aaron north (T/C) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made some significant deletions then. The section now appears to be one among many; when the other article is done (if it gets done), it could link out to the FLG claims. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Kilgour-Matas report into mainspace and listed it at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report. The result of that discussion will decide what happens to the contentious material in this article. SilkTork *YES! 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that article is allowed to be kept, we can easily reduce the problematic section to just a very brief mention and link to that article to end this GAR as a keep. Aaron north (T/C) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thought: the allegations in the FLG-related claims indicate that the bulk of organ transplantation (donation, movement, whatever: voluntary or involuntary) would be from FLG practitioners. It may be indicated in this article that it treats strictly legitimate organ transplantation practices, and also indicate what reliable sources say about the prevalence of legitimate versus illegitimate practices, in terms of quantity of transplants, and so forth. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

edit

The disputed material has been reduced to one paragraph, and the article is now more balanced. Are concerns now addressed? SilkTork *YES! 17:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There has been excellent work on the controversial aspects of this article, and the creation of Kilgour-Matas report. It remains to ask whether the article meets the GA criteria. I would like to close this reassessment as keep, but cannot do so at the moment, as there are problems with the sourcing (for example the first two sentences of the background sectionremoved) and the prose (e.g., tenses, grammar, words to watch), and the lead does not seem to be a summary of the article. Examples include:
    • "China herself began organ transplantation in the 1960s, which grew to an annual peak of over 13,000 transplants in 2004."
      Why is China feminine, and capable of carrying out organ transplants? The antecedent of "which" is unclear enough to be confusing.
    • "China still has one of the largest transplant programmes in the world,[4][2] and explores innovative surgery, such as Professor Guo Shuzhong performing the world’s first face transplant that included bone."
      Now split into two sentences, the second being "China explores innovative surgery, such as the world’s first flesh and bone face transplant, performed by Professor Guo Shuzhong." This still personifies "China" and the verb "explores" needs to be fixed.
    • "Although other sources, e.g. brain death, had been tried, the lack of legal framework hampered efforts."
      The prose has been fixed, but whose view is it that "the lack of legal framework hampered efforts"?
    • "On the eve of a state visit to the United States by President Hu Jintao, the 800-member British Transplantation Society also criticised China's use of death-row prisoners' organs in transplants, on the grounds that as it is impossible to verify that organs are indeed from prisoners who have given consent;"
      "as" is not needed here, but the sentence makes an assertion that it is impossible to verify that organs are from prisoners who have given consent, which may in fact be a point of view.
    • "Doctors involved in commercial trade of organs will face fines and suspensions, and only a few certified hospitals will be allowed to perform organ transplants in order to curb illegal transplants."
      Now reads "To curb illegal transplants, doctors involved in commercial trade of organs will face fines and suspensions; only a few hospitals will be certified to perform organ transplants." The future tense is almost always unencyclopedic, and often suggests other problems with coverage and neutral point of view. I haven't read the source yet, but sentences like this raise alarm bells.
    • "If successful, Chinese authorities say they hope this will reduce the need for organs taken from death row prisoners and will stem the tide of black market organs."
      The aspirations are now attributed to Chinese authorities and the sentence is easier to read.
  • I'm willing to help with the copyediting, but there is a lot of jumbled and unencyclopedic prose here. Geometry guy 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, thanks for looking into this. Could you clarify your concerns regarding the examples. I have checked the first example and the source is OK, it matches the lead, and it's grammatically acceptable. I have run the background section, which includes that sentence, through the Word grammar check and the paperrater.com grammar check with just one comma concern and one spelling concern which I will now look at, but that is all. I am aware that the article has had a number of people involved who may not have English as their first language - that is the nature of articles where the topic concerns a non-English language country, and this may lead to some awkward phrasing - but is the occasional awkward phrasing serious enough to prevent understanding, or to look sloppy? If the grammar concerns are such that people can debate them, or they are overlooked by the average intelligent reader and software grammar checks, then are they really serious enough to delist an article? I have picked up on comments that you have previously made that GA is best as a "light" examination, and that reviewers shouldn't get too bogged down in fine detail, which is more for FA. It may be worth talking about the GA criteria wording which says that grammar should be "correct". The prescriptive teaching of grammar is generally only done in primary schools - once people are adult, grammar teaching becomes descriptive, and people are made aware of its organic, consensual, varied and evolving nature. The use of the word "correct" when talking about grammar among adults is perhaps both inappropriate and "wrong"! SilkTork *YES! 11:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added annotations. Some are now fixed (thanks!), but these are not the only examples. I hope that the concerns are not enough to delist, but the article is hard to follow for a new reader because of so much chopping and changing. Sometimes this has resulted in grammatical problems, sometimes not. Clear writing is an indicator of clear thinking, and a lack of organization on the sentence level may reflect a lack of organization on the article level, just as words to watch may indicate neutral point of view concerns. Geometry guy 23:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer SilkTork's question: it seems to me that there are essentially two groups of comments here. I raised this review mainly because of my concern about the 3a and 3b criteria. Complance with the 3b criterion has been partially improved. However I still do not believe that the article meets the 3a criterion. I believe that RexxS and WhatamIdoing share my concerns about the 3a criterion.
The second group of editors have little/no concern about the 3a criterion. They have described the problems with 3b compliance and several editors have improved the article with respect to this.
This review should be closed as "no consensus". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Axl's concerns about "broad coverage". It is one of the criteria I have difficulty in assessing when doing a GA review, and the one that can generate the most debate. If I do some general research myself on the topic and find quite easily some major aspects that are not discussed then I feel an article fails "broad coverage", though if I have to dig deep in order to uncover aspects not discussed, then I feel that would fall under "comprehensive", which is FA territory. I also consider if the general reader would ask obvious questions which are not answered by the text - such as "When did organ transpants start". Broad coverage is going to be a judgement call, and will differ from reviewer to reviewer, though generally the assessment can be done by looking at a few significant reliable sources on the topic - this one is pretty good, and if there is material in that source which is not covered in the article, then it would be worth pointing it out so it can be incorporated. SilkTork *YES! 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concern as voiced by "Axl". An articles content need to match its title. I am having trouble finding the structure in this piece. For example: 1) I see a great graph in the lead outlining how common organ donation is over time. It is dealt with a section called "background". What about a section that dealt with prevalence? Than we have a section on "Developments since 2006" but no section on regulations. We have a section on "international concerns" but I am sure many within China would be concerned aswell. At this point I would support delisting until these issues can be addressed. If this is meant to be an article about the controversy of organ harvesting in China that have the title make this clear. If it is about transplantation in general than it need to be broader in scope to be a GA. BTW what number of organs harvested are transplanted into local or Chinese citizens?
Another issue is that references are not properly formatted. I have listed a number of further review here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the sources you list, and have left a comment on the article talkpage. I note that the sources cover pretty much the same material as the article, though this article for example seems to only obliquely refer to the substantial global concerns regarding use of executed prisoners as donors. I would argue that the Wikipedia article is more informative and neutral. I would also argue that this article does cover in broad scrope the details of organ transplantation in China, rather than simply the international concerns regarding the use of prisoners. While the international concerns do take up a substantial proportion of the article, that is appropriate as it is the most notable aspect of the topic, and is the one that the general reader would wish to recieve neutral information on. Please do a google for the article title and see what turns up. Wikipedia articles are a summary of existing scholarly knowledge - we do not pick or choose, or alter the information to fit any personal beliefs. The article has been problematic because of political debates among contributors - and the various titles have been part of the POV. The current title is both neutral and reflective of what the article is about. The article is about organ transplantation in China, and the most significant and notable aspect of that is the use of prisoners as donors. That the article can be further developed is accepted as part of the GA process. When doing a GA review we do not look for comprehensive cover, and indicate points for future development. Your comments asking for a section on local concerns might be considered as a potential point for future development, though would be problematic as sources on local concerns are not readily available. SilkTork *YES! 10:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I have taken this discussion off my watchlist, and am unlikely to come back here to make any more comments. I'm here because I'm closing down the moderated discussion which lead to this article being nominated for GA, and I thought I would link to the article and noticed that it is still being assessed, so was curious as to how far the discussion had got. SilkTork *YES! 10:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" The current title is both neutral and reflective of what the article is about. The article is about organ transplantation in China. "

— SilkTork
I strongly disagree with this. The article's content is about illegal/unethical organ harvesting in PRC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and if that where the title I would have little problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Organ_transplantation_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/1&oldid=1251204608"