Talk:Referred itch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 18:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Swpb taking over review from Mhutchinson91. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 18:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This article contains adequate information on the topic of referred itch. Though there is limited research of pathophysiological mechanisms, this article discusses a few theories that have scientific merit but lack widespread acceptance. This article meets Wikipedia good article criteria in the following ways. The article is well written overall in its prose, containing a well organized content box, and is free of grammatical error. This article is factually accurate and contains suitable in-text citations to relevant and reliable sources. The nature of this topic however limits factual accuracy because proposed mechanisms that have been previously discussed have not been proven. The inclusion of multiple theories is necessary when addressing contentious ideas, and is important for the reader in developing reasonable conclusion of fact. Evaluating referred itch and its relevant history gives this article a good deal of scope of material. Though this article displays neutrality, its stability can be questioned because of its inconclusive research. Even though research is inconclusive, it is unlikely that breakthrough study in the near future will repudiate the facts brought forth. Mhutchinson91 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, two concerns here. First, although there's no hard requirement on length of WP:GAN review, reviews are typically a bit more in depth, and offer actionable criticisms, resulting in a back-and-forth process, rather than being a simple rubber stamp. Secondly, and somewhat more disconcerting: I could be accused of edit count-itis, but should an account with <20 edits to a total of two articles really be doing a GA review? I'd like to point out, in good faith but with some concern, that all but two of those edits were to Boston College Marching Band – noting that the nominator and major contributors to Referred itch are currently seeking class credit at Boston College for their work on this article. I think that, given the appearance of a conflict of interest, Mhutchinson91 ought to withdraw their review/recommendation, and allow another editor to review the article. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Swpb, thank for you for input. I completely respect the GA review process and in no way would want the title if our article was not up to par. After looking at the basic requirement for a good article, I genuinely believed that our article met those requirements so I nominated our article (though I welcome more experienced editors to tell me otherwise, understanding that as newcomer I may not have the complete knowledge of what it takes to be a good article). You are right, in an attempt to get a second opinion and to initiate the review process, I asked somebody I knew who had previous experience with wiki to write an objectionable, non-biased, third-person review (I did not see that complete anonymity was a requirement of the reviewer and had hoped that his review would lead others to review it as well). I completely agree that a good article status should not be "stamped" so easily, and we did not intend for this reviewer to do so unless justified. It appears you are a knowledgeable, experienced editor, so as a newcomer I respect your view that Mhutchinson91 is an unfit reviewer. Although, as a knowledgeable reviewer it also would be greatly appreciated if you could steer us in the right direction towards the "good article" status (if you have time), instead of merely disqualifying previous reviewers. We would greatly appreciate any criticisms you have to our article so that we can continue to make changes and hopefully achieve good article status eventually. We strive to achieve good article status with nothing less than integrity and hard work, but in order to do so we need more quality feedback (something we were/are still trying to acquire). Though our class is a motivating factor, accurate, high-quality work is just as important to me and is what we would like to present. Gleasoda (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As an additional disclaimer, Mhutchinson91 took no part in writing the article and is not in the class. Gleasoda (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gleasoda. I'll do what I can to improve the article (no major flaws jump out at me), but for the actual review, you probably need one of the editors who specializes in biology or medicine off-wiki, which I do not. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 01:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On my latest pass, I noted the following issues:

• It would be beneficial to use Wikipedia:Citation templates within <ref> tags, so as to enforce a common reference style, and to automatically hyperlink urls, ISBNs, PMIDs, etc. Ideally, each reference should provide at least one form of linking to an online full-text copy of the source, if such exists.
• There seems to be a great deal of reliance on the Schott and Evans references. This is not necessarily a problem, but it could indicate that you need to make sure these are the best references available for each of the claims they are used to support.
• In the third paragraph of the "Mechanisms" section, you state "There is an untested hypothesis...". In a few places (the end of the intro, the start of the "Mechanisms" section), you indicate that a lack of research plagues the hypotheses generally. I would try to clarify the extent to which each hypothesis has or has not been tested.
• The last paragraph of the "Mechanisms" section seems like it might be redundant with the second paragraph of that section.
• More generally, you should check for any redundancy of coverage between the "Mechanisms" and "Causes" sections, and make it more clear what the role of each section is to be.
• Although it is by no means a requirement, most articles are improved by the addition of a relevant picture or two. That said, I don't know what sort of picture would best illustrate the content of this article. There are many available pictures on Wikimedia Commons that can be wiki-linked, and photos from Flickr may be uploaded if they carry the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-Share Alike licenses. I will gladly help you to properly tag any image you want to use. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• You would also do good to create a few more relevant incoming links to the article - right now only itch links in.

And I should note that linking to your sources, which I mentioned above, is probably a prerequisite to a proper GA review, because your reviewer will want to see where and how your statements are supported. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, they will be addressed soon. We will definitely try to figure out how to utilize the template you suggested, and fixing some of the redundancies you pointed out will also be a priority. I agree a relevant picture / diagram would be helpful. Thank you for the offer of helping us tag the picture, we may take you up on that if we have difficulty with it! Gleasoda (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been about a week since any real edits have been made to the article; I'm putting the review on hold for now, pending changes addressing the points I listed above. I think this article has potential; it would be a shame for it to not pass GA.

As for the image that was added, I'd like to see a bit more explanation of what it means - which points are stimulus and which are sensation? » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

✗  Fail Unfortunately, it's been a week since I put the article on hold, without improvement, so I think it's time to call this nomination a fail; I would note to anyone reading this review, however, that the article is mostly well-written, and would probably not take too much effort to bring up to GA status, should someone want to take up the cause. Also, the nominator(s) should be commended for the improvements they made to what was a stub, and I hope they earned high marks on their school project. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 19:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Swpb. I responded on my talk page, but I wanted to let you know that we did well on the project. Thank you again for all of your work with us. Gleasoda (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

I suspect that you haven't gotten a second opinion because it's not clear what you want from that person. A second full review? A specific question? A new reviewer?

A few comments on the above:

• When the community says that any registered editor can review a GA nomination, we mean any registered editor. (Of course, if that editor wrongly promotes a non-compliant article, then the article will be de-listed—as soon as any other editor notices it.) If Mhutcinson no longer wishes to review this article, then s/he can ask someone else to take over, but there's no question of being forced to stop here. Swbp's suggestion should be taken in the spirit of optional (but probably good) advice. (As a matter of mechanics, the new reviewer need only change the name and date in the "'''Reviewer:'''" line at the top.)
• Links to sources are optional (reviewers are capable of finding sources online), but commonly provided. In particular, doi and/or PMID numbers are commonly supplied for scientific journal articles.
• Citation templates are strictly optional, and some editors loathe them. Their primary advantage is that you don't have to know how to format the citation yourself. But if you freely choose to adopt them, then let me point out that if you click here you'll get the most common citation template, automagically filled out, for your first reference. If you know the PMID or ISBN, that link will type it all up for you. If you prefer Vancouver style, then manually change the beginning from "cite journal" to "vcite journal".
• If you haven't already, you might like to look over WP:MEDRS (especially "Use up-to-date sources") and WP:MEDMOS.

Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)