Talk:Clonaid

message: ===(cur) (last)  01:52, 21 November 2006 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (ISBN formatting/gen fixes using AWB)===
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**allege
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 01:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of automated peer review

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**allege
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 01:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  01:52, 21 November 2006 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (ISBN formatting/gen fixes using AWB)

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 01:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  20:51, 25 November 2006 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  01:07, 5 January 2007 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)

message: Not sure if these are bot-made edits, but the phrase "There are", "There were", etc occurs suspiciously often and damages grammar and meaning.
Compare:
"Scientists in the field, noting the high incidence of malformations and fetal deaths in animal cloning, have condemned Clonaid for premature human experimentation."
with:
"There are scientists in the field, noting the high incidence of malformations and fetal deaths in animal cloning, have condemned Clonaid for premature human experimentation."
I "fixed" the grammar by adding a "who", but it's clear that the "there are" has been added (breaking the grammar), as a "weasel word" to insinuate a minority opinion rather than majority consensus.
Other places it's been added:
"There were scientists who were interviewed regarding the announcement averred skepticism regarding both the authenticity and the ethics of Clonaid's procedures. These included Lord Robert Winston[8], head of the IVF research team at London's Hammersmith Hospital, and Tanja Dominko[9] of the Oregon Regional Primate Center's monkey cloning project."
"There are scientists with experience in animal cloning who have stated that cloning has a low rate of success per implantation, and that there are cloned fetuses which are malformed or do not survive to be born. Whether this is indicative of Clonaid's success is still yet to be seen, as IVF in animals is prone to the same problems. Regardless, there are those continue to be surprised that Clonaid does not appear to be affected by these problems; either Clonaid has been extremely lucky in discovering a superior method of cloning, they claim, or the company is making false claims. Still, there are people to whom it seems odd to that Clonaid is not more forthcoming with proof of their success."
"There are Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious leaders who openly condemn Clonaid, and there are those who view it as challenging long-held definitions of human dignity and encroaching on the power of God, whom these faiths view as "creating Man in His own image.""
Ah, heck with it, the bad grammar (not to mention complete mangling of meaning) is getting to me - I'll check the history, and if these are additions, I will remove all "there are".
Particularly blatant in bending the meaning is the claim that scientists only claim that "there are cloned fetuses which die" rather than "cloned fetuses die". DewiMorgan 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There are

message: "Some experts noted that scientists reproductive chemistry is understood better in humans than in most animals."
This might be true, but as I've never met a non-human scientist I don't see how we would know anything about animal scientists' reproductive chemistry! Tim Vickers 22:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny typo

message: lots of pages ive been too havesaid that clonaid has anounced that the first human clone was born in 2002  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.109.84 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  add this 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
Details:
* Lede - does not just summarize the article, but puts forth information that is only in the article in the lede. See WP:Lede
* Several of the footnotes go to dead article links. I'm not sure if this is because the site requires registration or not.
:* FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Why the first mention? The lede clearly states here being involved with the Clonaid controversy in 2002-2003, not 1997. Otherwise the need for chronological order must be violated.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * FixedKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: The writing and prose in this article is reasonably good, and the information is backed up by sufficient inline citations to satisfy the citation requirement. However, I can not in good conscience pass this article. There's just too much missing. First, the [[WP:LEAD|lead section is far too short, and doesn't adequately summarize the article. Secondly, if this article was about the 'History of Clonaid', it might stand a better chance at passing. But because this article is about Clonaid, the company, it is missing a lot of information about the organization of the company. There's nothing about the profits, revenues, shareholders, board of directors (governance), and other information that needs to be in an article on a corporation.
The overall organization of the article is severely lacking. There's lots of first-level headers, and many of these have long titles. I would recommend combining some of these sections to make the writing flow a little bit better together. For example, a section with a title of 'responses by scientists' with a single paragraph cited by a single source, would be better off if it's talking about the response to a specific action, and should be placed into a section dealing with that issue. Some of the sections have pretty long titles as well, and section titles like "The year before the alleged clone baby claim" should be shortened to something more clear and concise, and easier to read in the table of contents. The section entitled "Embyronic cell fusion machine" is 85% quote and 15% non-quoted text, so this is another excellent candidate for combining with another section, or expanding it.
So overall, the article meets the GA criteria with respect to the overall grammar, writing, and prose, and reference citations. But it is far too short, lacking significant content, and poorly organized that it fails to meet the criteria on the completeness and organization aspects. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: March GA

message: I'm really confused here. Was the child, Eve, verified or not as being a clone?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.23.218 (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: She was not verified.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get some clarification? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Clonaid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330093639/http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/Archive/200209/FOR20020927b.html to http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/Archive/200209/FOR20020927b.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clonaid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/28/cloning.vatican/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206075108/http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/Archive/200209/FOR20020927b.html to http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/Archive/200209/FOR20020927b.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clonaid.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030524212642/http://www.clonaid.com/ to http://www.clonaid.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Clonaid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206053639/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200301%5CFOR20030106b.html to http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200301%5CFOR20030106b.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070731190030/http://www.genpol.org/reflections.pdf to http://genpol.org/reflections.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clonaid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110013040/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200402/200402240004.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200402/200402240004.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)