Talk:Traditional African medicine/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Thanks for reviewing this article. I recognise that a number of users have put a lot of effort into this article, however I and other users (see talk page) do have some concerns about this article:

1. Firstly, the article makes extremely broad generalisations about African medicine ("In African cultures, the act of healing is considered a religious act. ")
2. Secondly, the article fails to recognise the broad diversity of cultures and beliefs that exist in Africa
3. Thirdly, the article relies on a number of older sources, and is written in an essay-like format with a lot of examples
4. Fourthly, although it is hard to substantiate, I find that the numerous overbroad characterisations do impact on the article's neutrality

I would like the opinion of another editor, but I do not think that this article meets GA standards, particularly relating to comprehensiveness, neutral, and point of view. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments originally posted by QuackGuru at WT:MED

have been removed. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

and can be read in the original diff here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've said this elsewhere, but I repeat it here for the convenience of anyone looking at this article later:

• These refs are formatted correctly per WP:CITESHORT (now that I've undone QuackGuru's improper merge of the separate section headings).
• The WP:Good article criteria don't require proper citation formatting, and therefore you cannot de-list an article over ref formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a comment on another page suggesting that the refs might be reformtted (despite being exactly the format used in the example at WP:CITESHORT). If someone is interested in doing that, then I remind you that WP:CITEVAR requires that such a change be discussed in advance on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What I noticed in skim-reviewing

Some obvious points:

• Article does not discuss evidence for effectiveness - this is a MAJOR question one might ask about ATMs
• Relies heavily on four sources, two of which are now dead links.
  • Another is bound to be rather out-dated (publication in 1979).
  • One of the dead links does not state the name(s) of its author(s), which is generally desirable.
  • Maybe one or both of the dead-linked sources can be found in a cache somewhere?

I think these points offer sufficient basis for delisting and should be addressed as a priority. I would also encourage citing more directly from primary sources rather than a small number of secondary ones (although secondary sources are acceptable, relying heavily on a small number of sources of any kind generally is not). Samsara (FA • FP) 09:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may add a few drive-by comments:

1. A book written in 1979 is still a WP:RS and fine for an article like this. For a FA, perhaps this would be an important thing, but a GA is all about presenting the fundamentals in a clear and informative way. Had it been 1879, this would be more of an issue. I see no problem with it whatsoever.
2. 4 sources, provided no copy-vio, is no problem whatsoever.
3. Dead-links can be retrieved (usually) and are not a reason for delinking. Ditto the authors - they are not always given in the website themselves and is certainly not something that should affect an article's quality rating.
4. Please read the guidance on WP:RS - primary sources are OK as quotes, but are emphatically not what articles should be written from. That would be WP:OR which we should all try to avoid.
5. I agree that effectiveness should probably be treated, but I don't agree that this is sufficient in itself for delisting.

Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)