Talk:Digital media use and mental health/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 04:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In preparing this for a nomination, the nominator removed a cleanup banner at the top of the article, but Treetear has reinstated it arguing that it was still valid. The cleanup is "may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material", and at first I was confused because there are a reasonable number of images, all seemingly properly licensed. It's not the images. The issue (on which I agree with Treetear) is that this article is a massive quote farm, with many paragraphs (including the first three) consisting almost entirely of the words of the article's sources, with only a little bit of uninformative new prose connecting them. Although it's a debatable issue, quoting to excess (so that the article is not so much in our own editor's words, but just repeating the words of its sources) can easily be interpreted as a problem of copyright (WP:GAFAIL #1 and WP:GACR #2d). It is problematic from the point of view of being good quality prose (GACR #1). The fact that there is a clear dispute over this issue means that the article is not adequately stable (GACR #5). And, although I'm not certain of the "unquestionably" part of "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid" (GAFAIL #3), it certainly had and still has cleanup banners that I agree are valid. Altogether, I think this is not ready for its GA nomination. I think it would greatly benefit from an attempt to digest and synthesize its sources rather than regurgitating them in big chunks. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

True thankyou very much. With such a difficult topic it has been hard to justify the existence of the article, hence the overquotations initially. I am as needed attempting to paraphrase the experts, and as always collaboration is neccessary. E.3 (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)