Self-injury

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]

  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)

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]
  • 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]
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]
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]
  • Thanks for doing the research to clear up this copyright status. will381796 (talk) 16:51, 3 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]
Category