Talk:Self-surgery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Self-surgery was a Natural sciences good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: January 21, 2008 |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] revert
I'm reverting this because I think the previous text, a direct quote from Michell's book, was appropriate, parallel with the rest of the article (including the new section "Self-Surgery in Popular Culture"), and NPOV. To my reading, the version edited by 82.12.230.173 on 27 Mar 2006 seemed to advocate trepanation. Also, I am suspicious of edits that come from IP addresses and not from real Wiki users with real Wiki usernames. Jimhutchins 03:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article evaluation of Self-surgery
This evaluation was done on this version of Self-surgery at 1:00 PST on May 1, 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.
Criteria:
- Well-written
- The writing is a bit dry, and nowhere near "brilliant prose," but is still written at a good level and is not constipated or overly technical. It is very obvious to me and probably to most readers that the article was mainly authored by experts in the field and feels very much like a medical text. Still, although it is not the best prose, it is still very nice writing.
- Factually accurate
- More citations and references should be there to support some of the claims. Phenomena like self-surgery are prone to hoaxes and we should always try to back up all dubious claims with as many sources and references as possible. I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of the article, but I certainly can say that the verifiability is simply not there.
- Broad
- This is a very narrow article, but it manages to cover quite a bit. I would be interested in a peer review and an answer to the question of what might be required to meet the criterion of comprehensiveness for FA status. The article is satisfactorily broad.
- Neutrally written
- With writing this dry, I would be amazed if this article contained bias.
- Stable
- Examining the last 15 edits, rounded up to account for vandalism, there are no major changes to the article. A few links have been changed, MoS compliance has been enforced, and some new text has been added. The article is in a state of slow and steady growth.
- Well-referenced
- I am no medical expert, but the person who compiled the references clearly was. The references are fairly solid and well-done, although using the Cite.php syntax might be a good idea for making the article's notes easier to access.
- Images
- There are no images.
Summary:
- Well-written: Pass
- Factually accurate: Fail
- Broad: Pass
- Neutrally written: Pass
- Stable: Pass
- Well-referenced: Pass
- Images: Pass
Congratulations. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lack of citations
This article needs citations, or it should be removed from WP:GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problems
I thought there were a few problems with the way the article's written:
- Organization - The sections go Genital, Abdominal, Medically supervised, Self-trepanation, Extreme circumstances. Why not switch Medically supervised and Self-trepanation to keep the body parts sections and the situations sections together?
- Depth - this article consists mostly of a list of examples of self-surgery. It doesn't really touch on other aspects of the topic, such as sociological, cultural, and psychological aspects. In the lead it mentions that it can be a manifestation of a psychological disorder, but the article doesn't explain which disorders could manifest in this (leaving us morbid readers really curious!).
- Short sections - The lead and trepanation sections are two sentences each, not that great. In the trepanation section, it says, "One of the most famous instances of self-trepanation is that of Amanda Feilding" and that's it. No further explanation (though it does link to her article). Probably just expanding that sentence to say "...Amanda Feilding, who..." would do it.
- I hate References in popular culture sections, but that's just me. But can I ask, is there any reason that these examples were chosen? I mean, of the hundreds of references to self-surgery that probably exist in pop culture, why these? They don't seem particularly special to me.
- Clarity - Under #Genital, there are two paragraphs, one starts with "by far the most common" and the next starts with "rarer still". How common or rare are these practices? Maybe some numbers would make this less confusing?
- Global view - do others think the article presents a worldwide view of the subject? I'm not sure it does, all the examples seem to be from Western cultures. Since there's no discussion about cultural stuff, it's hard to tell.
Thanks to all for the work that's been put in so far, I hope it can be improved more! delldot on a public computer talk 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to be a jerk, but I'm going to put this up for delisting if nothing's done to address this soon. delldot talk 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good article reassessment
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted by the nominator (see below). Please see the archived discussion for further information.
