Talk:Gerontological nursing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 05:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi LynnMcCleary, I hope that you are well. If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I've reviewed over 60 other articles, including on Female genital mutilation, China, and a number of other topics, and I edit primarily in the field of anatomical articles. I'll start the review in a day or two. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As you may notice, I am a new editor. I am also a professor and I'm using Wikipedia in my teaching. Any feedback would be appreciated, both for this article and to expereince what the process of receiving feedback is like. --LynnMcCleary (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC, which are six criteria that all good articles should meet
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	Clear and well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.	Some of the citations lack page numbers, which makes verifying them difficult
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article primarily focuses on US and Canada.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.	The two images, whilst of old people, don't relate to the topic of nursing.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article and contributions to Wikipedia. With regards to GA, I think the article could be expanded somewhat before it meets the 'GA' standard. This standard represents comprehensiveness, readability, and verifiability. Unlike academic publications, there are no space constraints, time constraints, and a more global focus. I think that this article provides a good introduction to gerontological nursing, and is clear and well-written but that some areas are missing:

• Comprehensiveness. I do not think it has a sufficiently global focus. This history and training focus mainly on the US and Canada, but do not mention other parts of the world, including EU, China, and India.
• Comprehensiveness. I think the history section provides a brief overview but could be expanded, particularly about the initial years after the field was created.
• Comprehensiveness. This article does need an expanded overview of what a gerontological nurse actually does, in terms of their roles and responsibility.
• Verifiability. This article is well-sourced from recent publications, which is great. The books lack page numbers however, which impacts on verifiability. You can use the {{rp}} template, or insert an extra parameter in the citations. That sounds quite confusing, so have a look at Pudendal nerve to see how it's done for the 'rp' style, and Urethra for how it's done using the 'page' style.
• Verifiability. There's a sentence that's lacking a citation: "Gerontological nursing includes generalist and specialist practice. A generalist is a registered nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse. A gerontological nurse specialist is an advanced practice nurse or nurse practitioner who has graduate education in gerontological nursing."
• Images. It would be good if images could be selected or captioned to show how they relate to the nursing of older people, in terms of what 'value' they add to the article.

There are some tools that you might not be aware of that might be useful for your future editing:

• In case you do need general help, there's a place called WP:Teahouse which I'd encourage you and your class to check out.
• Google n-gram can be used to quickly check usage of words. I did a quick check for gerontological vs. geriatric nursing, and it does appear geiratric nursing is still the word most used in literature here: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Gerontological+nursing%2C+geriatric+nursing&year_start=1800&year_end=2014&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGerontological%20nursing%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cgeriatric%20nursing%3B%2Cc0 -- however as is stated, this doesn't mean it's the most appropriate terminology, and gerontological may be what is most accepted.

Many articles take many years of accumulated edits to reach a 'good' standard, and there's no rush. This article is well-written, but I don't think ready for GA standard at the moment. I'd be happy to discuss this with you below.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, so much, Tom (LT), I really appreciate you feedback and assistance. It will probably take me a while to get back to editing this now. I hope that maybe another editor will contribute as well. It would be lovely to see this article improved. I did editing on it to begin to learn about Wikipedia, partly so I could help my students. Your feedback is helpful for me - both for improving this article and for helping my students navigate Wikipedia. It's also helpful for my students. Again, thank you. Hopefully, I'll find time for more editing and may call on you for clarification if needed. LynnMcCleary (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please feel free to contact me by my user page if you have any issues. I'll close this review without passing the article, and would encourage you or your students to renominate in the future when you feel it's ready. The good article review criteria are a useful guide to this. Best wishes, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)