Jump to content

Talk:Imprinted brain hypothesis/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]
Fixed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Autism spectrum disorders" redirects to "autism spectrum", so per WP:NOTBROKEN I'm unsure of the need here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I'm dumb, fixed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not perfect wording, it's important that the spectrum disorders aspect be reiterated here, particularly regarding the schizophrenia spectrum. The fact the hypothesis relates to milder schizophrenia-spectrum disorders as well as SZ proper is significant, as in many cases Crespi and Badcock claim that ways in which their hypothesis is contradicted for SZ proper don't serve as falsifications because milder spectrum disorders have different presentations. Because a lot of readers will be unfamiliar with the idea that SZ is a spectrum just as autism is, it's important to make it as clear as possible. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
/ Edit: per above. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
/ Working on it, although some of the changes I've made or plan to make strike me as risking oversimplification. I've changed 'etiology' to 'cause' -- probably the biggest complex language issue in the lede -- but 'cause' does have implications that are importantly absent from 'etiology' (and in turn the other way around). I'll admit this is probably me overthinking it, and I'm working to simplify stuff. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
/ Cite is given, but I toned down the wording. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
/ You're right it could probably do to be a bit longer. I write ledes quite short, and I think I've hit the necessary beats here, but many people do write them longer than I do and I'd be interested in hearing any expansion suggestions you have. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, I've made a start to expanding the lede -- what would you recommend from here? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better, could we add the date/presentation, and a little bit about the history? 09:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

General

[edit]
I've wondered a bit if the section headings could be simplified myself, but after some experimentation I think this is the way it's going to be, at least at the GA level. I think the most comparable subjects here would be articles like Aquatic ape hypothesis or Obstetrical dilemma, and you can see they also have quite complex section headings. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, this is a hypothesis written by two men, but the article is almost over before you mention either one. Why is there no more info on how they came up with the hypothesis, or when this happened? I feel a major part of the article is missing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is a bit further expanded again, and I've added more on C&B and their history to the "The hypothesis" section (since renamed "Hypothesis and background"). What are your current thoughts on it? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, did some work over the past few days on your remaining advice -- where are we now? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

[edit]
Thanks, Vilenski! I have to admit my total knowledge about snooker and the FAC process combined could fit on the head of a pin, so I'm afraid I might not be of much help for your current review, but it looks like it's going pretty thoroughly without me -- best of luck with it! Hope you like the article. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Just a quick ping a week later to see how this is going. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​I've simplified the headers that I think can do it, though I've now ended up in a debate with myself -- do you think "Kinship theory" is better as a separate section or folded into "Hypothesis and background"? I've mostly been following the shape of the article before it was significantly edited in terms of how sections are broken up, and that's a part I've left relatively untouched; it looks a little bit superfluous as a separate section, but the article already has quite long sections. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty image-light topic. I've added another image under "Issues" on imprinting disorders, though I'm not sure it's very illustrative. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imprinted_brain_hypothesis/GA1&oldid=1007074619"