Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Self-injury/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-injury[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: GA status upheld. Although mostly tentative, the general consensus is that this can stay as a GA...just (in other words, keep improving it, guys!) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has not been reassessed for two years. Complaints regarding the quality of sources per WP:V. Seems rather wordy with a long list in the middle. There is also no history on the talk page discussing the review it previously underwent or who did the review. will381796 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you either elaborate the issues you are raising, or consider initiating an individual delist per the delisting guidelines. The GA reviewer was Cedars: the talk page promotion is here. Geometry guy 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the review? Are people just allowed to promote an article w/o performing a review? will381796 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not any more, but these were the early days of GA. (A bit like the Wild West!) Geometry guy 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I'm going to go ahead and individually de-list this article. I don't think they should be "Grand-fathered" in simply because that's the way they used to do it. Is there some date after which GA required a review? I'd like to go through and at least take a look at all of these good old boy's promotions. will381796 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are old boy's promotions. I do think that editors such as Cedars really evaluated articles against the criteria at the time. They just didn't appreciate the need for accountability in the form of a visible review. And many of our current reviews don't provide such accountability: a list of checks is not the same as a careful review.
I see you simply delisted the article, without following the guidelines linked above. I don't support that, but I will close this discussion anyway if no one raises objections to your action. Geometry guy 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support the de-listing, it was too hasty and should only have followed a fair discussion, considering the time-scale from which it was nominated and then de-listed, it didn't give any chance for editors to have their say. Far too hasty Jdrewitt (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not followed the correct procedure for de-listing an article, - you should have waited for the reassement discussion to have run its course and then followed the guidelines on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I therefore have reinstated the GA review status of the article, the GA status must only be removed once the discussion on this page has run its course as per instructions on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, specifically please read the "Guidelines for closing a reassessment discussion". Jdrewitt (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Okay, objections have been raised and this will thus be a fully fledged GAR discussion. Could the nominator please elaborate the reasons that the article does not currently meet the criteria? Thanks. Geometry guy 10:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. First, my greatest issue with this and many of the older articles is the fact that I cannot find a bona-fide GA review anywhere in the article talk page or talk page archives. The article was passed almost 2 years ago. New nomintations for GA must have a review performed and this review needs to be maintained on the article's talk page for posterity, but this alone is not criteria for de-listment. So, this is just a very brief overview of some of the things I see. I don't have time for a full review as I am currently reviewing another article:
  1. The lead appears to be too short and does not adequately summarize the contents of the entire article
  2. Definition section seems to be abruptly interrupted by the "Methods of injury" list. First, list are discouraged. Second, this information appears to be more appropriate in another section in the article.
    - List removed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Several of the items in that list are not referenced.
    - List removed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Further reading section seems excessive. We don't need to list every book ever published on the issue.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Some of your sources are rather sketchy an unreliable. For example, reference 18 does not appear follow WP:Sources requirement for reliable sources. Same goes for 14.
    - Please clarify the references you are refering to, the reference ordering has changed. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Source 42 appears to be linking to an entry on a comment made to an online web story. That's hardly a reliable source and clearly violates WP:V.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Source 43 is an internet forum. Also a violation of WP:V.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Some sources appear to be dead, like source #31.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. References for websites, in general, appear to be incomplete, with the author's name and dates of publication missing from almost all references. This stuff needs to be included with any reference regardless of whether or not its an internet site.
  10. I am curious about the copyright status of the image. Am I missing somewhere in the image description where the Jamestown Foundation released the image for use on Wikipedia? I mean, its not an image self-made by the initial uploader, so how could they have licensed it under creative commons? If permission was granted by jamestown, then doesn't that permission need to be listed somewhere on the image page? The image also doesn't seem to be appropriate for this article in general. The image hardly is showing self-mutilation. It may have been the painter's intention to have the painting show that, but to the general reader this image does not illustrate self injury very well.
    - See below Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. There is a "citation needed" tag located in the article. I would quick fail any article with a tag such as this if it were nominated for GA.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are just things that I've noticed without going into the actual content of the article (as I lack time for a full review). But, if I were reviewing this as a new GA nominee I would fail it simply because the references and the lead need enough work that it will take a while to correct. will381796 (talk)

  • Comment and Keep

1. The lead section could probably be extended but does read well and seems to include most of the content in the article really. How long do you want it?Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long enough to do what it's supposed to do. The lead serves as both a summary of the entire article as well as an introduction to the subject. You do a good job of defining self-harm as an intro to the subject, but there's no summary of the other sections (demographics, risk factors, treatment, etc)in the lead. will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. The method of injury list states that the methods of injury are limited only by human imagination and as such do not need citations since they are examples of methods that will cause self inflicted injury - they are commonsense knowledge.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then why include the list? If its only limited by human imagination then no list at all is required.will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. The sources 42 and 43 that you mentioned are no longer cited.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. "citation needed tag" has been replaced with an appropriate academic reference.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. If you have a problem with the image copyright, then deal with this through the proper channels.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image copyright is one of the criterion for Good Article status. See WP:GA for the criteria. The article, if illustrated, must have an appropriate image that has correct copyrights applied. I first argue the image is inappropriate. I also have questions on its copyright status. Its appropriate for me to bring this into this discussion if you want to maintain GA status. will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image has been discussed on the talk page and it was considered appropriate. If there is a problem with the copyright status then I again request this be dealt with through the proper channels - i.e. the user who uploaded the image should be notified. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. The remaining issues that you have raised are pretty weak and to be honest if you helped to improve the article yourself then ALL problems could get fixed pretty rapidly. We editors do our best we can but have to work together. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No time. As I said, I'm reviewing other articles. If I get time maybe I'll run a fine tooth comb through the article, but it's not our jobs as GA reviewers to edit an article until it is a GA. will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree, if there are relatively simple tasks to be completed, then common courtesy dictates the reviewer make these changes rather than simply critisising them. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, missing or not-properly formatted references are not considered to be simple tasks. Reviewers need to refrain from contributing too much an article they are reviewing as they would no longer be reviewers but instead contributors, thus making them unsuitable to review an article. will381796 (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't actually correct: all GA processes encourage reviewers to contribute to improving the article once the review has started; this is not regarded as a conflict of interest. However, there is no obligation to help out. Geometry guy 11:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider it a conflict of interest for myself as a reviewer. If GA criteria state otherwise, wonderful. But if I make a total re-write of an article following a review to make it conform to GA status, and then promote it to GA status, then you're promoting an article to which you have significantly contributed. I don't see how that can not be considered a COI. I see no difference between that and a nominator promoting his own nomination. will381796 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article. I am perfectly prepared to make any minor adjustments to the article to ensure it retains its GA status, however I request a second opinion on the issues that have been so far raised. Thank you Jdrewitt (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, you'll get more than one opinion at GAR. I'm currently checking out the article. The references don't seem to be very consistently formatted, and it could use a copyedit. I'll make a first pass at this and then comment further. Geometry guy 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been through the citations: the formatting was very inconsistent (e.g., placement of the year, which parts to italicize, whether to put the title in quotes). I've used {{citation}} to provide a standard format as far as possible, but in some cases I didn't understand the citation, and in some cases data is missing (I've added a question mark, comment or "unknown" in these cases). Could editors more familiar with the sources tidy the handful of references that I was not able to fix? The further reading section would also benefit from a clear choice of format.
In general the article feels untidy, a 2005 work which has lost its shine. It needs a thorough copyedit, and I think Will381796 raises a lot of valid concerns, even if they can be easily fixed. I hope we will be able to fix them over the next week or so, otherwise we'll have to settle for a delist. Geometry guy 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for your efforts.
I have been through and fixed the missing data in the references, I will continue to check this in case I have missed any and as you say, there is still work to be done here. I also updated the dead link on reference 31.
With regard to the image copyright, I am unsure of the correct procedure, but I think the user who uploaded the image should be notified to confirm the copyright status.
I think the content has certainly improved since 2005, however as the article has been updated since then, general consistency and wording may have suffered. Hopefully the issues that have been raised won't take an age to fix, if the article does end up having to be de-listed then so be it, but I'm not giving up yet!Jdrewitt (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I have now fixed the further reading section Jdrewitt (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright, please see [1] (Andrei Lomize's wikipedia commons discussion page) where Jamestown Foundation clearly give permission for the Nikolai Getman paintings to be used in wikipedia under the [2] (Wikimedia 3.0 license) Jdrewitt (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing the research to clear up this copyright status. will381796 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work! I've made myself into a commoner and updated the image information so that the next editor does not have to do the same amount of research as you did to find the permission. With regard to references, I notice that you changed some {{citation}} templates to {{cite journal}}, yet used {{citation}} for the Further reading. It is probably best, for consistency, either to use {{citation}} for everything, or to use {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite news}} for everything (they format slightly differently). I prefer citation because it is just one template, and allows Harvard-style links, but I don't mind if you want to go with the other option.
    "I'm not giving up yet!" - that's the spirit! I'm sure the content has improved since 2005: I was just trying to convey an impression. I think we should be able to polish up those rough edges. Geometry guy 11:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did change some of the {{citation}} templates to {{cite journal}} but since I wasn't consistent I have now changed them back so all references have {{citation}}. Next task seems to be the lead section and maybe fixing that "methods of injury" list...watch this space Jdrewitt (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor process comment. It is generally regarded as inappropriate to strike out other editors' comments: just add the "Fixed" or "Done" and leave the editors to strike out their comments themselves if they are satisfied with the fix. Thanks, Geometry guy 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, have reverted the strikeouts Jdrewitt (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've reformatted the page slightly to make it clearer who wrote what (I hope other GA reviewers will stop by and comment!). If anyone objects to the way I've indented their comments, feel free to readjust. Geometry guy 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. There have been fantastic improvements to this article. I've made a few minor copyedits and added a couple of citation needed tags, but the article generally reads well. I have a slight hesitation that the article conveys a point of view, but other editors would need to demonstrate that there is a serious problem for me to change my recommendation. Geometry guy 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I have replaced the {{fact}} templates with appropriate academic references. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reassert keep. After the spurt of activity that has resulted from this GAR, the self-injury article has been improved significantly. I am rather disappointed that no more users decided to contribute to the process, especially considering that there is (or was) a community of users who frequently contributed to the article. Nevertheless, thanks go to Will381796 for highlighting the problems and Geometry guy for helping to fix them as well as chairing the review. No article is perfect, but I do feel that self-injury deserves its GA status and I am therefore requesting a close to this review. I will continue to contribute to the article in an effort to maintain and improve its standard. Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad the article has been improved as much as it has. With these changes, I think it can probably retain its GA status. But, I wouldn't mind hearing input from some other's. Strange how only 3 people have commented on this reassessment. will381796 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is good news and I am happy that you are happy with the changes. I have asked a number of times on the talk page for contributions on this review process but alas no one has responded. I suppose a further request could be made but I'm not sure anyone will respond Jdrewitt (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm used to commenting on similar articles at the FA level, so my observations may not be a concern at the GA level. The sources may be acceptable for GA level (things like autism.org, helpguide.org, palace.net, spartacus.schoolnet, firstworldwar.com), although they wouldn't be sufficient for an FA (the article could be entirely sourced to high-quality reviews from peer-reviewed journals), citations are not completely or correctly formatted, publishers aren't specified, and the article is UK-centric and doesn't conform with WP:MEDMOS. However, I don't think any of these issues preclude GA status. I do suggest an independent copyedit and prose audit to pick up instances of unclear wording. I noticed sentences like this: . self-injury Awareness Day (SIAD), which is set for March 1 of every year, is one such movement. and this In a study of psychiatric morbidity carried out in the UK an overall lifetime prevalence of 2.4% was found, 2.0% of which were male and 2.7% of female. Large study? Controlled study? Not a peer-reviewed source. Population sample? 2.7% of female? The article would need significant expansion (per WP:MEDMOS) and higher quality sourcing if it is aiming for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-I have fixed your latter points. With regards to the sources, much of the information cited is available in the academic references that have already been cited by the article. So although there is some concern over the reliability of the sources, the information isn't necessarily factually inaccurate. In fact, I am attempting to replace all these poor sources with academic peer reviewed references. It is an on-going task but, as you suggest, I don't think it is a reason against GA status. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is helpful to cite both an academic reference and an online source, and I recommend considering this option in some cases: Wikipedia has many types of reader. Geometry guy 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-Additionally, considerable effort has been made to format the references consistently. In this way ALL journal articles and ALL books citations are correctly formatted with their auhor, title, publisher, year, ISBN etc where applicable. The only references that do not conform are the web citations, which I agree need to be fixed per my comments above. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the article incorrectly mixes the citation template with the cite family of templates, see WP:CITE#Citation styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Many thanks for commenting here! I was just clicking the edit button to comment (i) that I've updated the lead per WP:LEAD, but my edits need to be checked by experts, and (ii) that I agree with will381796 that another independent comment would be helpful. I agree with you that the sources are not FA level, and appreciate you making the distinction: I think some of the issues you raise may not be a problem for GA, but some may be. For example, citation formatting and unclear prose are commonly regarded as GA issues, and it would be good to have another opinion on the source quality. I hope these will be addressed and that someone else with experience of GAR discussions (Majoreditor, EyeSerene, DHMO, anyone?) will comment here. Even though I have been helping out with this article, I will not be offended if other editors think that it still does not make the grade, and Jdrewitt has both expressed determination to bring this to GA standard, but also some understanding that a delist (and hopefully future renomination) may the outcome here. The nominator has been satisfied with the improvements, but that is not the only point. In any case, I hope we can reach a consensus soon. Geometry guy 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's borderline, but don't object to GA status for this article. A general copyedit would be useful (aren't they always!), and I'm not convinced of the relevance of the example at the start of Psychology - it's rather left hanging with no further development or explanation (and I think curly-quotes are discouraged by the MoS unless used in a callout). The only other thing that jumped out were the number of very short sub-sections, one of which (Self-injury awareness) is very unclear. Is " Self-injury Awareness Day" an international or a national observance, and if the latter, who (and why not others). There are also a few uncited statements, but I don't like fact bombing and I think what's there is OK for GA. EyeSerenetalk 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Self-injury/1&oldid=1078815922"