Talk:Nonviolent Communication/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Now the problems I've found with this page really only show the state of the page now compared probably to how much better it used to be in 2012, when it was listed as a good article. But now, there are a lot of problems with the page:
- Either the first paragraph, the very first paragraph, in "History" has misplaced the citation so that it doesn't end at the end sentence, or the latter half of the paragraph is unsourced. This one problem represents my main problem scattered throughout the article: you'll be scrolling, then find a part of the article dedicated so much to its cause, but it's unsourced. Can we fix this? As well as the citation needed tags? It looks even worse when the article makes claims like "This could lead to problems of accessibility for the underprivileged and favoring a higher social class.". Who's making this claim? Wikipedia itself? I assume this is a generalization of what researchers may be saying, but can we have a name to associate with this opinion?
- Which brings me to my next point: points of bias in the article: From the "Responses" section, "NVC may lead to the outcome of an ended relationship. We are finite creatures with finite resources, and understanding one another's needs through NVC may teach that the relationship causes too much strain to meet all needs.". This sounds like a quote, but I don't know who it's attributed to. It really sounds poetic, and nice, but we need a reference and someone who said it, otherwise it just looks like an editor's opinion. "From an evidence-based standpoint, it does not have the same standing as practices such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. Supporters of the theory have generally relied on clinical and anecdotal experience to support its efficacy. Critics generally assume the efficacy of the method on an individual level; most criticism consider issues of equity and consistency. In Internet blog posts, some have described its model as self-contradictory, viewing NVC as a potentially coercive (and thus “violent”) technique with significant potential for misuse.". This is sourced, but who are these "supporters"? Who are these "critics"? I learned so much, yet so little about these critiques and who they're coming from! Whether it says who the critics and supporters are in the source doesn't matter though; it should be included in the article, yet it's not.
A lot of work needs to be done on this article in order for it to be GA material again. There is biased content and too much of it is unsourced. Therefore I'm submitting it for reassessment. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- @NowIsntItTime: you've opened this as an individual reassessment, which means that it's up to you to delist the article (easiest with User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool). I agree with many of the points you make above. Could you close the discussion? Femke (alt) (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)