Wikipedia:Peer review/Patient and mortuary neglect/archive1

Patient and mortuary neglect

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we were up for deletion, and we want to improve this as much as possible.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfsich comments: Congratulations on not being deleted. This article needs many changes to more closely follow the Manual of Style, here are some suggestions.

This completely lacking a lead section (it would come before "Definition"). The lead should summarize the article - see WP:LEAD.
The title should be in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.
The title includes "Patient neglect" but the article says very little about this topic, and frankly this seems like two separate topics forced together by an unfortunate choice or article title - why not split these into two articles and keep this one as Mortuary neglect?
This article has zero inline references and really needs them, think of them like footnotes in an academic paper. See WP:CITE
Any chance for some images?
The article has several very short sections (only one sentence in at least three cases) and is choppy and does not flow. Try expanding them or combining them.
Since this article is referring to human cadavers (corpses), the use of the word "carcasses" seems inappropriate - how would you feel if you went to a relative's funeral and someone referred to your relative's carcass?
Remember that in some ways you are telling a story - the section "Washington v. John T. Rhines Co." does not tell what ultimately happened in the court case or where it was or why it is important to this article (presumably there have been many lawsuits against mortuaries since 1990). Try to answer who, what, why, where, when, and how for all such stories and provide context for the reader.
The article needs lots more work, but these are the major points - fix these and then worry about the more minor details.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]