Talk:Addictive personality/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions to make this article worthy of good article status? We've done our best at trying to fix the in-line citations and adding references. Mcarey15 (talk)

I will get to this review. I apologize, but I spent 10 hours in the hospital today related to some personal issues. I will get a look at this soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am quickfailing this article. The solution to inline citations is not to put a citation at the end of each paragraph. The objective of inline citations is to have a citation immediately after each fact.

The article needs extensive wikification to add internal links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So for clarification, what if an entire paragraph is literally ALL facts from the same article, do we still need to cite after every sentence? Please help us! Mcarey15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, my fellow team members and I went through the article and fixed places where a fact was stated but was not supported with a citation. We also made many more external links. Does this make it a good article then? Mcarey15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, no. There are plenty of problems here, and I can list you a couple.
- The article needs a copy editor, plain and simple. Between the first and the second sentence a space is missing--smaller and bigger errors are plentiful, and the Manual of Style is not followed (see capitalization in section titles, for instance).
- The references are unattractive and unwieldy. References should be combined (look at how many notes refer to the same NYT article), and a different system should be devised, with a separate bibliography. Refer to other Good Articles or Featured articles for examples. Actually, the very first thing that should be done, after copy edits, is study WP:NAMEDREFS and clean up the list of references.
- Too much of the article consists a list of addictions: its coverage is in no way broad enough. The DSM isn't mentioned, for instance; there is no history of the concept (it is not an old term); too much of the information is based on newspaper articles, not on scientific, peer-reviewed publications.

Them's the shakes. The article is in no shape to be promoted, and I think it is going to need much more than a good cleanup, but improvement will have to start somewhere. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with the Manual of Style is not on the WP:Good article criteria, so it can't legitimately be failed over issues like capitalization in section headings.

Also, only five types of facts—direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—must be supported by an inline citation for GA status, not "all". Citations may be bundled at the end of paragraphs. A copy of the citation at the end of every sentence is not required. Wikipedia:Inline citation#Citation_density has a simple description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it would be failed over caps--that's the most minorest of the issues I brought up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]