Talk:Alcoholism/GA1

GA Review

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

This will probably be an extensive review, but what strikes me at first glance is poor layout. Wikipedia:Layout says "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose", "Bullet points should be minimized in the body of the article, if they are used at all" and "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text".

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the full review, and as can be seen, one of the main issues is with the layout mentioned above. I am not saying that integrated lists should be avoided entirely, neither will I dictate exactly how the article should be structured, I am just saying that at present the article is far to choppy and poorly structured to pass as a GA.

• "Medical definitions" - only American bodies are mentioned here. The article should have a more global coverage, I would assume the WHO also operate with their own definition?

Done. Added in World Health Organisation definition.

• "Terminology" - this is the first instance of the choppy prose and bad layout mentioned above. Also, why use bold types? Those should normally only be used for the title and disambiguation links.

Done.

• "Signs and symptoms" - this section has a much better structure, though there are some other issues.

• Many long sentences needing commas, particularly in "Mental health effects", but throughout.

Done LV

• Image: "Most significant of the possible long-term effects of ethanol." - this is not a sentence.

Done.

• "The most common cause of death in alcoholics is due to", "massive and are caused in part due to the serious...and partly because of" - bad English: don't use both "cause(d)" and "due to".

Done.

• "Typically these psychiatric symptoms caused by alcohol misuse initially worsen during alcohol withdrawal but with abstinence these psychiatric symptoms typically gradually improve or disappear altogether." repetition of "typically"

Done.

• "Risk factors" again, more commas!

Done LV

• "Diagnosis" this is the most listy part of the article, and some restructuring should be done.

Done. Not sure if more work needs doing.

• "it has limitations in people with less severe alcohol related problems, white women and college students." That's a bit of a non-sequitur, why should it not be effective for white women?

Not done. I don't know why, I looked through peer reviewed literature and it does not say why; it is important information so I think it should be kept.

• "Medications", here we have the same problem as in the "Screening" section: the bullet-point list gives the impression of a self-help guide rather than an encyclopaedic article.

• "blocking our ability" no first person
• "however at this time" should be avoided: "however per 20.."
• "quality of life ratings" is ambiguous: "quality-of-life ratings"

Done.

• "Prognosis" again the question is: is the bullet-point list really necessary? It's also a very short section.

Done.

• "History" - "Etymology": why a heading and subheading when there's only one section? However, there should be a "History" section in addition to the "Etymology"; the history of alcoholism did not start with its definition. The role of excessive alcohol consumption throughout human history (from Noah and onwards), and the attitudes of various cultures to the issue, should be explored (what happened to the dipsomania from the lead, for instance?) This, however, might fit better into the "Society and culture" section. As for the "Etymology", the section is choppy with too short paragraphs, and there is also something strange going on with the references.

Done.

• "Stereotypes" this is probably the worst example in the article of bad layout. There is no reason this can't be combined into one paragraph. Also, references should normally come at the end of sentences.

Done.

• "In film and literature" there are no references here, and although the first part is nice and analytical, towards the end it descends into little else than a list of films with alcohol in them.

Not done. Is not having their own articles in wikipedia self referencing? Their notability is already established. I can reference if needed, I am tempted to delete the section though as I am not a great fan of trivia type sections.

Done. I deleted the subsection. It was too original researchy and the article size too big to justify a popular culture section.

• "Gender and alcoholism" again a well-structured section. However, there's an issue with 3a and 3b here: comprehensiveness and focus. There is a lot on women and alcohol, but as far as I can see nothing on race and alcohol, which is an important topic. Ethnicity is mentioned in the lead, but not anywhere in the article.

Done. I have added a subsection on race and alcoholism.

• Some of the refs need to be properly formatted: 61, 63-5, 90, 94, 109 & 110.

Done. Ref formating issues fixed.

These are some major issues, particularly the ones relating to comprehensiveness and structuring. I will give the article one week, though it would perhaps be better to have it peer-reviewed further and then re-nominated. The best thing about the article is the sourcing; it is referenced throughout with reliable sources. The language is also good for the most part. There is no reason why this should not become a GA with a bit of work. Good luck! Lampman (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of work has been done, though all of the issues I raised have not been addressed yet. Would the editor like an extended hold to do further work on the article? Lampman (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be much appreciated Lampman if you could extend the time. Only a few isssues need addressed now (unless some others are found before end of assessment). :) Thanks again for your indepth review, which was most helpful.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed commas and a couple of extra bits, some notes on talk page of a couple of things spotted on way... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, I'm afraid I won't be able to look at it until after the weekend. Lampman (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Enjoy your weekend.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I see that a lot of improvement has been done, and the article looks a lot better now. However, since I was notified that the article was ready for a new review, a lot of changes have been made. This is primarily restructuring by Leevanjackson and others, but also a discussion seems to have developed on the talk page over the very name and scope of the article. My problem is that I cannot promote an article unless I know that it is stable. I need to know that these issues have been resolved and will not cause further restructuring, otherwise I will have to fail the article per criterion 5. Lampman (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes the naming of the article, if you see my last comment on that discussion, I said that the there is no consensus for a name change and no one has restarted the debate, so I think that disagreement is over with now and the article is stable. The other disagreements which came up as side issues of the best name for the article were not to do with the article content but more personal views on alcoholism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - The sections now largely follow other medical articles and I am happy with the overall structure. I feel the debate helped to further define alcoholism and related pages ( to this end some some extra refinements to its definition where added ) and as Literaturegeek has stated there was/is no consensus for a move. --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Criterion 5 is about content changing, and edit warring. There are no "move wars" or content changes due to the discussion over the most appropriate name for the article so I do not think criterion 5 applies in this case.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of ongoing constructive changes – such as those Leevanjackson has made – the article should remain on hold, and the reviewer should neither pass or fail the article (see footnote 4). However, in this case it seems that both major editors agree on the current structure of the article, in which case I have no problem passing it. Lampman (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you for doing the review Lampman. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)