Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: — Cirt (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

article issues/(medical)

• in terms of MEDRS[1], only the section on traumatic stressors seems to apply and it is well referenced (referencing is always an important point), the rest of the article seems to be WP:RS

• in regards to images I agree w/ DocJames [2]

• in regards to WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere.[3] sections:
  • disability rating
  • PTSD C & P exam
  • (subsection) traumatic stressors

do not seem to have these issues...however text that does not fall under wikiproject med may need some trimming.

• finally, in regards to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Editorializing the same would apply mentioned in prior point above....IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time

1. Unfortunately it's been over a week with no response by GA Nominator to above helpful comments from Ozzie10aaaa.
2. There are lots of helpful comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States and I strongly recommend the GA Nominator look those over and attempt to address all of them, point-by-point.
3. It would also be useful to nominate this article next to WP:GOCE for a thorough copy-edit.
4. Before nominating again to GA I would strongly suggest going through the peer review process, and during that process posting neutrally-worded notices to relevant WikiProject talk pages asking for help.
5. Particular issues that are quite problematic with this article are WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:EDITORIALIZING.
6. If you've nominated to WP:GOCE, gotten a copy-edit from them, gone through a peer review at the peer review process, implemented all suggestions from the peer review, responded to all points raised from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States, and addressed the major problems with WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:EDITORIALIZING -- then after that point in time, that would be a good stage to nominate again for GA consideration.

Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, as best I can tell, this review was never opened properly per WP:GANI. The GA review header was not included on October 5—it would have been if the review had been started from the links provided at the article talk page or WT:GAN—so the bot didn't see it and the review couldn't be transcluded, nor was a bot notification made to the nominator Markworthen's talk page. I rather doubt that Mark knew that his article was under review. Under the circumstances, I'd like to urge you to reopen the review to give Mark a chance to respond, now that he's actually being notified. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If he had watchlisted the page, he would have seen the above comments. — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears the GA Nominator has actually not made any edits on-wiki since 28 September 2015. — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nor any edits to the article, itself, at all since 24 August 2015. — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Once the GA Nominator has made a good-faith-effort to go through and address all the recommendations, above, then they can feel free to renominate to GA Nominations at that time. You can try to reach me for a reevaluation at that time. But I do think the article would be greatly helped by Copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors, and peer review process with copy edits there as well from previously uninvolved editors, and going back and consulting Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States, again, and trying to address outstanding problems of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:EDITORIALIZING. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, and for offering to review in future should the article be upgraded. I hope he takes advantage of it. I don't fault him on the watchlisting, since this page did not exist to watchlist at the time, and few people know how to watchlist a not-yet-existent page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome! I added it to transclude into the main article's talk page as well, several days ago. Presumably that was on his watchlist. — Cirt (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize the article was being reviewed until today. I did thoroughly read the feedback I received from the Military History reviewer, which was very helpful, and I responded to each point-by-point, as I mentioned previously. I had never heard of the Guild of Copy Editors before. I have sought and received reviews from several subject matter experts in psychology, psychiatry, law, and benefits analysts within VA, and I have incorporated those recommendations into the article. When I have time, I will review the critiques offered here with an open mind, but I must say the condescending and pedantic tone of this review is off-putting. I'm a big boy and I can handle criticism, but this review offers only that, without any productive suggestions on how to effect the major changes the reviewer deems so important. I encourage fellow psychologists and psychiatrists to edit Wikipedia articles, but the few that try tell me things like, "The place is run by a bunch of know-it-all types who seem to enjoy bashing would-be contributors who are trying to learn the system. I have better things to do with my time." This type of review contributes to such perceptions. It's not surprising that we have trouble attracting knowledgeable editors. Mark D Worthen PsyD 20:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)