Talk:Marriage and health/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 05:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the nominator is active as the article (and nomination) was likely a homework assignment. But, it deserves a fair shot. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Verification

• Many of the main sources used in this article are difficult to verify due to their paywalled status. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Request for sources in progress.[1] Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Request complete. I have received a copy of the 48 page source used in this article and I am reading it as time permits. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead section does not really summarize the main points of the article. It briefly touches upon them, but I feel like I'm reading a TV guide summary of a program episode rather than a full summary of the arguments required to understand the lead section as a conceptual summary of the topic. It's just too brief. I understand that its length is acceptable in proportion to the size of the article, but the sentences are too short and read in a disjointed manner. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Marriage and health are related.
  • The source cited doesn't exactly say that. It says "greater marital quality was related to better health". It also discusses the "association between marital quality and health outcomes" and the "relationship between marital quality and health outcomes". However the subsequent source seems to support it. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Married people experience lower morbidity and mortality across such diverse health threats as cancer, heart attacks, and surgery
  • This is a poor paraphrase and should probably be quoted directly from Kiecolt-Glaser 2001. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Most research on marriage and health has focused on heterosexual couples, and more work is needed to clarify the health affects on same-sex marriage.
  • I'm pretty sure affects in this instance should be effects, such as "health effects on same-sex marriage", not health affects. Isn't "health effects" considered a noun? Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Simply being married, as well as the quality of one’s marriage, has been linked to diverse measures of health.
  • "Marriage itself, as well as the quality of one's marriage, is linked to diverse measures of health." Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Compared to other relationships

• Conversely, loneliness is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality.
  • While sound, that borders on OR since the two sources don't connect it directly. In other words, the source about marriage doesn't mention loneliness and health, and the source about loneliness doesn't mention marriage and health. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Little work has directly compared the health impacts of marriage compared to those of non-romantic relationships, such as connections with friends or colleagues
  • Sourced to p. 141. You need page numbers for this kind of thing. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• However, there are several reasons why marriage may exert a greater health impact than other relationships, even other cohabiting relationships: married couples spend time together during a wide variety of activities, such as eating, leisure, housekeeping, child-care and sleep.
  • Does the source you cite actually say that? It says "Health behaviors that married couples frequently participate in together, such as eating and sleeping, are also promising directions for future research." It goes on to talk about the influence of the things you list, but this is all couched in terms of further research, not your definitive "several reasons why marriage may exert a greater health impact". The content in this article sounds far more certain than the source it is based upon. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

• ...and both argue with similar frequency about the similar issues.
  • No "the" required. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• However, same-sex couples resolve conflicts more effectively, and distribute household labor more fairly compared their heterosexual counterparts
  • Compared to their heterosexual conunterparts. Statements like that need page numbers. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Gender differences

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Measuring health

• These are broadly categorized as clinical endpoints, and surrogate endpoints, and biological mediators.
  • Remove first instance of "and". Should read: "These are broadly categorized as clinical endpoints, surrogate endpoints, and biological mediators." Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Page numbers needed for "Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints", Atkinson et al., 2001. (ref 15). Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to health

• Umberson 1992 is fairly old. Is this a definitive study, or are there newer sources to cite? Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Research on marriage and health is part of the broader study of the benefits of social relationships.
  • This should really appear in the lead section as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Two main models describe how social support influences health.
  • Should merge with the subsequent paragraph to read: "Two main models, the main-effects model and the stress-buffering model, describe how social support influences health." Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Marital quality

• Close paraphrasing from Robles et al., 2014, is a problem in this section. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Unmarried people are, on average, happier than those unhappily married.
  • The reader shouldn't have to wait 12 paragraphs to find this out. This kind of summary finding belongs in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Prose is excellent so far.

   Minor problem in the lead

   Close paraphrasing in lead and "Marital quality" section (from Robles et al., 2014) is evident when looking at the original source material

   Several grammatical errors in "Same-sex marriage" and "Measuring health" section

   "Links to health" could use some tightening of the prose

   Opening sentence in lead is a bit weak.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   WP:MEDRS compliant?

   WP:SEEALSO is unnecessary in this instance. Links should be merged into the body.

   WP:LEAD should summarize main points in the body

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   See WP:WGN: "page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns...direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons...and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail)." This is especially true for the 21 references to the 47 page study by Robles et al., 2014.

   Page numbers needed for Kurdek 2004, 2005.

   Page numbers need for "Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints", Atkinson et al., 2001. (ref 15)

   C. No original research:

   Minor issue with WP:SYN in "Compared to other relationships" section

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Only one sentence about the race differences of marriage and health without mentioning the conclusions? Granted, it's the first study of its kind and is only two years old, but the article could benefit from properly summarizing the findings of Liu 2012.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Title: Why is this article titled "marriage and health" when most of the sources are about marital quality and health?

   Some of the content is presented far more definitive and solid than the sources make it out to be

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Charts or graphs would work well here

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have fixed the minor grammar issues and removed the see also section with duplicated links per the above. However, I have had to fail this nomination for three reasons: 1) the excessive close paraphrasing of source material (for example Robles et al., 2014) makes it difficult to see how this article can pass, especially when the nominator is inactive and the top contributors have expressed no interest in helping, and 2) the lack of page numbers needed per WP:WGN in this particular instance, and 3) an unsatisfactory lead section which needs to be greatly improved to help the reader understand the topic. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

As it been a week with no work done, I'm failing this review. Secret ^account 02:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not, as I am actively working on it, it is not on hold, and I have an outstanding request for sources on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request board. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)