User:Markworthen/sandbox/Alcoholism-Informal-GAR

Informal good article review of Alcoholism

Note that I did not conduct a detailed review. I just wanted to get an overall sense of the article's status vis-à-vis the GA criteria.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Good Article criteria - quick summary

Informal Good Article review of Alcoholism

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Much of the article is well-written but some clunky prose has seeped in.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Needs to be checked in more detail, but on first blush these guidelines appear to be met.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A good portion of the article is outdated, i.e., it was well-sourced 10 years ago, but needs updating.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Similar to above. I did not identify many "bad" citations, they simply need to be updated and content rewritten where it is no longer accurate or complete.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The "Research" section is sketch.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The fact that "alcoholism" is not a diagnosis, and is not used in scientific writings very often these days, needs to be emphasized and explained in the lede and elsewhere.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some fine-tuning needed, but one can discern the crisp focus that qualified the article for GA status 10 years ago.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a major problem, but some fine-tuning needed to achieve proper balance.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.