Talk:Autism/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I'm finding many of the same issues with this article that I did in the review of Aging brain that I completed yesterday, and so I'm going to have to also fail this article's GA nomination. Some thoughts:

• The largest issue I found is with old sources and sources that do not conform to WP:MEDRS. Per MEDRS, the article should rely mainly on secondary sources and sources newer than five years old, if possible. In a quick look through the sources I see a lot that are over five years old, and many that are over ten years old - including at least one that is over 20 years old!! I also noted a heavy reliance on primary sources (one "in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences.", according to MEDRS), including some very old primary sources, which is a big no-no in medical articles.
• Some spots missing references. Examples:
  • Majority of Autism spectrum disorder in the DSM-V section
  • Last sentence of first paragraph of Neuroanatomical Findings section.
  • Last sentence of Controversial Theories section.
  • Majority of last paragraph of Evidenced-based assessment section.
• Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have a lead of three to four paragraphs which summarizes the entirety of the body of the article without introducing new information.
• Section headers should have the first letter of the first word capitalized and the first letters of the remainder of the words lowercase, unless they are proper nouns. So, "Therapeutic interventions", not "Therapeutic Interventions"
• Quite a few short, choppy sections, such as the subsections within the Comorbidity with autism spectrum disorders section. Many of these short sections could be combined to make the article flow more smoothly for readers.
• It might be good to also take a look at WP:MEDMOS.

Because of the major issues with the sourcing and the lack of response by the nominator to the other articles they have nominated, I am going to fail this article's nomination for GA status. When the sourcing issues (and hopefully the others as well) have been addressed, this article may be brought back to GAN. However, I would suggest perhaps asking for a check from some of the wonderful people at WP:WikiProject Medicine first - although this is not a necessity for a good article nomination, there are some very helpful people over there who really understand the intricacies of writing about medical articles on Wikipedia. Good luck in your future editing, Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply