Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Peer review/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[reply]

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..."

Subject

  • I would maybe say who Bill Kultz is to give some relevance/context. "Journalist Bill Kultz gave the keynote speech..."
  • "Sisyphean task..." POV maybe? I would just go with "were given the task"

The gay community

The medical community

The political and governmental agencies

[edit] The news media

  • "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".
  • "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.

Criticism and recognition

  • "contrary to the expectations of Shilts himself" - citation?
  • 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...
  • "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.
  • "Gay groups also criticized..." - do we know which groups in particular?

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.

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.
  • "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.
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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[reply]
      • 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)[reply]