Talk:Elizabeth Ward (British campaigner)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the healthcare campaigner who pioneered organ donor cards in the UK placed a personal ad in The Times looking for a "cadaver kidney" for her son? Source: Ward, Elizabeth (1988). Timbo: a Struggle for Survival. Sidgwick & Jackson (published 1988-05-01). pp. 50–51. Quoted in inline citation.
  • ALT1: ... that the healthcare campaigner who pioneered organ donor cards in the UK compared the debate over opt-out consent for organ donation to that around seatbelt legislation? Source: Ward, E. (1991-01-05). "A tragic and wicked waste of life". BMJ.
    "The introduction of seat belt legislation into Britain some few years ago amazed a great number of people who claimed that the law severely interfered with the rights of the individual. The bill went through parliament with ease because it had the full support of the entire medical profession. Until the medical profession is prepared to give similar support to opting out legislation as being the only possible solution to the grave shortage of donor organs for transplantation there will be a continuing waste of life-a waste which I believe to be wicked as well as tragic."
  • Reviewed:

Created by Jonathan Deamer (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC).

• Reviewing

• Article is long enough and new enough
• Article is well written, neutral and supported by inline citations.
• Both hooks are short enough, correctly formatted and supported by inline citations.It is helpful to have the quote from the book supporting the citation for the original hook. Note that the text quoted in the citation should be tidied eg removing hyphens from 'suit-able', 'get-ting', 'eight-een' etc
• No Copyvio detected on Earwig
• QPQ exempt
• Adding information about her early life would enhance the article further. She was an influential campaigner and an article about her is welcome. Well done. Papamac (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Papamac Thanks for the review, and the helpful feedback. I plan to try to get this to good article status, so the pointer on early life info is useful! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Ward (British campaigner)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jonathan Deamer (talk · contribs) 14:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback IntentionallyDense. I've re-read the MOS guidelines and expanded the lead. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m just on mobile right now but thanks for fixing that up! I’ll continue my review later today. Usually I start by doing a source review where I check every source and make sure everything lines up. This can be time consuming so I usually break it down by section. The table doesn’t really let you reply within the table so feel free to reply to my comments anywhere on this page. After checking sources I read through the article a couple times to check for prose and such. This often involves me highlighting phrases and requesting they be reworded. If I find anything major I’ll ping you but otherwise I’d recommend just keeping this page in your watchlist. I look forward to reviewing this article! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @IntentionallyDense, the article is feeling improved already with these suggestions. I have:

• Added dialysis details.
• Slightly changed the structure to avoid the clunky "Timbo..." heading.
• Added page numbers for all the book sources.
• Added details on sexism, being seen as interfering, snobbishness/power structures in medical establishment.

I think that covers everything you've raised so far. Look forward to your next feedback! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you for taking the time to make these improvements! I'll finish my source review and dose a prose review now! IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Have made all the latest improvements. Will give it a final read through with fresh eyes later before I confirm it's fully "done" from my POV. The only one of your suggestions I struggled with was explaining "don't ask don't get". I've settled on something that I think does a good job and improves the article, but was there something else specific you had in mind? Jonathan Deamer (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The changes you made were exactly what I was looking for! Great work on this article and thank you for being so cooperative and open to my suggestions! IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	To make this understandable to the average reader I think it's important that you explain what dialysis is, who needs it and a bit more of the medical side of things. The Times source that you used gives a good summary of this. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)  Done I did some quick copyediting where I could and added some wikilinks. Feel free to undo some of these changes if you feel they weren't needed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) "This led to her involvement in the Government's Kidney Donor Scheme, with accompanying donor cards inspired by those a US-based friend had shown Ward." The use of "accompanying" in this sentence makes a bit hard to understand what you are trying to say. Is there a way you could reword it? I would also add that "US-based" could be taken out but that's up to you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) "imbalances between them and the medical establishment." I'm not sure who "them" is in the context but that should be stated. (I'm assuming you meant patients but wanted to check). "She argued for this approach from 1991, with The Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act passing in May 2020, shortly before her death." the "from" seems out of place here. Is there any way you could reword this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) "By 1974, Ward realised there was a need to add to the work being done by the National Kidney Research Fund with an organisation focused on kidney patients themselves." This might sound better split into 2 sentences, one about her realizing there was more work to be done, and one about her starting an organization confused on kidney patients. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Just based off first glance, your lead section is way too short. A lead should summarize the content of the article. This means it usually ends up being around 3-4 paragraphs and often doesn't have references because the information is cited elsewhere in the article. Here as some examples of well written leads for medical people: Vera Gedroits, Charles Lester Leonard, Charles Bingham Penrose, and Willis J. Potts. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)  Done "Timbo, donor card, and charity founding" Is a bit lengthy for a section title. Is there a way you could shorten this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)  Done Unfortunately, by expanding your lead you have made it a bit too long. It should be 4 paragraphs or less. Is there a way you could shuffle around the information to fit this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Just based off first glance I'm going to need page numbers for ref 2 as it is a book. I'm going to go ahead with the rest of my source review but will need those page numbers to finish my review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Lead: pass Timbo, donor card, and charity founding: I'm leaving the first and third paragraphs till page numbers are added. The second paragraph checks out, no plagiarism. Leaving the first sentence of 4th paragraph till page numbers are added. Last sentence of 4th para is verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Fundraising: Verified last sentence of second para and second para. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Opt-out consent: All sources were verified and no plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Patient advocacy: Pass. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Personal life: Pass. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC) All sources match, I just need page numbers for the one source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Per above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Passed copyvio check however I will have to check the sources to confirm. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC) No plagiarism issues elsewhere although I haven't checked the book yet.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A couple of the sources talk about disadvantages that Ward had when advocating, I feel like these could be touched on here. Also, I think this article requires a bit more background on what the climate was like in healthcare at the time. Your BMJ source specifically talks about power imbalances in medicine at the time. I highlighted some other areas you could go into more depth about in section 1a. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)  Done ""don't ask, don't get" approach to fundraising" You use this term several times throughout the article and I feel like it's worth expanding on what this approach means somewhere in the article. While it's pretty self-explanatory, some of your sources go into a bit more detail that I feel you could incorporate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) "This led her to start fundraising for renal causes" Please expand on what "renal causes" are in this context. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) "Soon after, she was invited to a meeting with senior civil servants to discuss what became the Government's Kidney Donor Scheme, with accompanying donor cards" Is there any way you could go into more detail here? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There doesn't appear to be any free photos of the person. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until @Jonathan Deamer: Can expand the lead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)  Done On hold until @Jonathan Deamer: can provide page numbers for the second source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)  Done On hold until @Jonathan Deamer: fixes the issues in 1a, 1b, and 3a. If these issues are fixed I will pass this article. This was a super interesting read. It's obvious that the nominator put a lot of hard work into this article. Great usage of quotes throughout the article. There really weren't many major issues here and I had a lot of fun with this review! IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.