Wikipedia:Peer review/Adelle Davis/archive1

Adelle Davis

The article may or may not be complete. A peer review would be appreciated.--RogerK 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I would have edited it myself, but since you asked...also, this is my first time doing a formal peer review, so here you go:

~~I would move the first pic to the right; I'm all for going against the grain, but this is fundamental—and it makes some of the formatting on my browser look weird.~~ -- done.
~~Blockquotes don't get quotation marks.~~ -- there aren't any blockquotes
Decrease the use of passive voice (were criticized and discredited by; was published by; etc.) -- There are still some, this is just a pet peeve of mine, my English teacher used to beat me whenever I used passive. No, not really.
~~Background and education section is short and ends rather abruptly. Split the last sentence at the very least (what does appearing on the Johnny Carson show have to do with death from cancer?)~~ -- done but it still needs expanding it would seem.
~~Move the picture of the healthy baby book out of the blockquote in the controversy section.~~ done, although it seems that the whole "blockquote" has been just been made an inline quote.
I'd find a different title for the "tributes" section. Don't have any good ideas right now, but it just sounds weird.
~~Change the section title "Adele Davis today" to something else.~~ -- looks better now

--Easter Monkey 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I've addressed most of them, with the exception of "Tributes" (but I'll look for an alternative), and passive voice. --RogerK 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up: "In the spring of 2006, the president of the foundation stated that they would like to re-publish Davis's books in the near future" Is there a citation for that statement?

--Easter Monkey 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed passive voice --RogerK 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement corroborating re-publishing is made on the website "Adelle Davis Revisited", which is referenced in the article. I also had a personal phone conversation with the foundation's president, Eloise Dilling, last month, and she made that statement to me. --RogerK 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'd put that as a citation/footnote then. I would think though that your phone conversation would be original research though. --Easter Monkey 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Nevertheless, it is verification, a second source, from the horse's mouth. Therefore the statement is valid. --RogerK 07:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no blockquotes. As to passive voice, an article does not have to be phrased in active voice all the time, passive is still acceptable, and I feel that the few remaining instances are. --RogerK 01:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So many teachers and supervisors and whatnot have drilled into my head that passive is bad. It's my PTSD that kicks in whenever I see it. I try not to use it and prefer active voice, but everybody has their own style. --Easter Monkey 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your objection to inline quotes? --RogerK 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection per se, my only point was that blockquotes don't get set off by any punctuation, just by indentations. --Easter Monkey 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I made three minor changes and one that isn't major, but might not be considered minor. In the "Background" section, I moved the "In New York" clause to the middle of the sentence (after the names of the hospitals). It's basically just a matter of style-choice, but it seems to me to flow better there. I alphabetized the "External links" and the "References". I changed a wikilink from the more general "pseudonym" to the more specific "pen name". I have to admit, I am not familiar with the subject but it is a very informative and well-researched article. The only other possible improvements I would suggest echo two of EasterMonkey's observations. Namely, the picture/block quote combo in the "Controversy" section still looks a little funky for some reason (maybe it's just my browser?) and the title of the "Tribute" section, although I, too, am unable to think of a better term at the moment.--WilliamThweatt 01:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, Will. I agree with the New York move, nice flow. And the pen name (although she never used it again, so "pseudonym" is not necessarily inferior). Expansion of "Background and education" is difficult; there are no resources that I'm aware of, other than her children whom I've tried to contact with no success. I've thoroughly researched her history, in what little time I've had, and apart from the fact that one source said she was known as "Vitamin Davis" in college, I can find nothing else to add (and I wouldn't add that; I could not find a second reliable source which would verify it). Davis also received an award from a Brazilian entity, but I could not find any reliable documentation, so that also was not added. --RogerK 03:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]