Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Self-harm/2

GAR

Is this actually a Good article review anymore or just an infinetely long list of tasks to be done at the whim of user Jmh649? I have made an extensive effort to fix the references, I have spent a long time doing this. I have extensively reviewed and edited some sections, added new references, images and generally tried to tidy up the article. But am now getting very frustrated because it seems my efforts are being disregarded. I'm getting tired of making changes to suit one persons point of view of what should be included in the article from their medical point of view (Munchausens for example). We have been here before with this article, it was nominated for GAR in 2008. I addressed all the concerns then and am attempting to do the same here. But I am just wondering if either the article is simply not good enough to be a GA (which i think is untrue, in my opinion it is worthy of its status) or if we're just being given an infinetely long list of tasks to do which aren't necessarily going to make a difference to its GA status. Where there are issues with citation tags etc. I will fix these but we seem to be deviating from the task of GA review which surely shouldn't be a massively long task? We're not seeking perfection and nowhere on wikipedia will you find perfection, that is an impossible task. Certainly no GA is perfect! :-S Polyamorph (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this article is never going to make GA status because whenever our back is turned user Jmh649 adds another citation needed tag. I think maybe my 372 mainspace edits on this article must be completely worthless. I just cannot understand how this review can be resolved if new tasks keep getting added to the end of it before we even have time to deal with the first set of tasks. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay will delist it and you can have it reassessed by someone else.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):Needs some work b (MoS (Med)): No important MoS ommissions

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): References need further work b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): Some of the sources are questionable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): No needs work on causes section b (focused): Remains focused

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Yes

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I would like a second re-assessment be performed by a neutral party before the article is de-listed as I think you have 1. prematurely de-listed the article and 2. Not followed due process, you yourself initiated the re-assessment and yet have closed it before it had a chance to be resolved. Polyamorph (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes please request a reassessment by someone else. As I have stated above I do not feel this meets GA criteria at this point. I do agree that improvements have been made but they are not sufficient.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a community reassessment, so asking for "a reassessment by someone else" suggests you have missed the point of community reassessment. Please let me know if it is still not clear. This reassessment probably needs to be restarted anyway. Geometry guy 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks was mistaken.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuation

I am not happy continuing this current reassessment. I understand there are issues to be resolved, many of these I believe should be discussed on the article talk page. It was a tentative keep last time but a keep nonetheless and this is the first time since that the problem has been raised. Hence it would have been prudent to discuss the issues on the article talk page before beginning the reassessment process, because there are a few editors who are committed to resolving the problems. I hope that your intention of starting this process in the first place was to attempt to improve the article. Well I think that we have made some progress and IMHO the references are excellent, of comparable if not better quality than other GA's I have seen. But I really want these issues raised on the article talk page first and give the editors a chance to fix the issues before commencing yet another reassessment. That is my opinion on the matter anyway for what it is worth. Polyamorph (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am carrying out GA reviews as part of the GA sweep [1] specifically looking at article pertaining to medicine. This is one of the few remaining articles to be reviewed. My goal is to make sure all articles under this scope meet current GA criteria. I am happy to get others involved and have attempted to do so [2] We should leave this open to give others time to comment. I realize the holidays may have made things seem a little disjointed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the GA sweep but thought that was for reviews not community reassessments. But anyway, will everybody take this note as notifcation that I will no longer be participating in this particular reassessment. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will reconsider. GAR, as part of GA, is all about improving articles. It creates a framework where editors can work together to make such improvements. That shouldn't be something to be afraid of or to get stressed about. Geometry guy 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think I can continue to work on this particular review. I think for one it has got a bit messy. I think to resolve this the the points that have been raised and are relavant to the GAR but have not yet been addressed need to be clarified and those that have been addressed need to be striked out. Also where editors have disagreed that something needs to be done, or done in the way proposed, this should be taken into consideration, i.e. it should be a discussion of what needs to be done and not a list of tasks set which absolutely have to be done without any room for movement or discussion. You have added some new persepective on the article which is very much appreciated. However, unfortunately I don't have the time right to spend on wikipedia, maybe in a couple of weeks I will. Personally I would like a break anyway as this reassessment has been going on for some time now. I propose a new reassessment be initiated with a clean slate which will give editors time to address the issues. But as I said I won't be available very much over the next couple of weeks. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative that I would be happy with, in order to keep everything in one place, is to close the first half of the reassessment and have the second half open. The points in the first half that are yet to be addressed can be re-clarified. Also it should be understood that the issues that have been raised will take some time to fix so the re-assessment may have to be open for some time. Polyamorph (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"it should be a discussion of what needs to be done and not a list of tasks set which absolutely have to be done without any room for movement or discussion" The former is indeed what GAR is. It is natural and helpful for reviewers, both at GAN and GAR, to express their concerns in clear and unambiguous language. That does not mean their advice is to be followed without question, merely that each issue be discussed and addressed. GARs are closed on the basis of consensus and the GA criteria, not on whether "tasks" have been done. Any other perception you have is your own perception: you will benefit much more from content review processes by regarding all reviewers, even the most hostile, as allies (consider, for example, Devil's Advocates).

Concerning closing the first half of the review, this has in many ways already happened: I made this comment with the intention of generating fresh review comments to make the GAR less complicated for all. Other editors responded to this.

Finally, although GAR aims to help editors work together and improve articles, it does not exist for the convenience of any individual editor. If there is consensus that the article does not meet the criteria, it may be delisted. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept all your points, of course. If I have time I will see what I can do to help. If the article then gets delisted following consensus then that's a successful GAR, might not be the outcome all editors had wished for but at the end of the day if an article doesn't meet GA criteria then it shouldn't be a GA. I understand that of course. I only wish that the issues had been brought up on the article talk page prior to the GAR being initiated, I think there would also be more response and discussion from other regular editors that way. But what is done is done. If I don't have time in the next few weeks to address the issues then hopefully some other editors will help address the issues. The key thing that needs to be done is an extensive literature review. I think this will fix ALL of the problems mentioned. However, this would take a significant amount of time to do and that is why I have not done it yet. Anyway, thanks for your mediation. Polyamorph (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)