Talk:No nit policy/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

What is a good article?[edit]

Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]
Verifiable with no original research:
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[2]

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.^[4]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:^[5]
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
^ ^a ^b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments[edit]

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Nicely written, though tends to use jargon.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

Good range of cites, though ones tested do not alwways support the material, and there are areas uncited.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Needs history coverage and world coverage. Main focus is on one policy (no-nit), and lack of awareness of other policies/treatements. Too much material on describing a head-louse.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Difficult to determine. There is already a bias in the article toward coverage of the no-policy and little else.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Two images File:Sommer, Giorgio - Famille napolitaine.jpg and File:Épouillage2.jpg are not allowed in all countries. As those images are decorative rather than essential it might be fairer to not use them.

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial inspection.

Interesting and valuable topic. Bullet points in the lead section are unusual and it doesn't look attractive. Weasel words - "The most well-known aspect of school head lice policy is the "no-nit policy", coupled with a geographic focus on America (no-nit policy) that assumes the rest of the world will understand. Current images are helpful, though one of a school nit examination, especially as the lead image, would be helpful. There appears to be a good range of sources, and most information in the article is sourced - though the bullet points in lead and first section appear unsourced. The first paragraph of "Immediate exclusion from school" is speculative rather than encyclopedic - and the rhetorical questions are inappropriate. I'd like to see a greater world view, or the article turned into one that is clearly an examination of the American policy - School head lice policy in United States of America. Query the title. Head lice treatment in schools perhaps? That would allow coverage of material on school treatment of head lice that began before there was any policy, and for local treatments that don't follow policy, but are effective. This is a recent article as a standalone, having been broken out of Head-louse infestation on 12 December by User:Noca2plus who has developed the article almost entirely alone, and is the nominator. There have been no conflicts, and the move was uncontested. While there should be some description of a head louse, as this is a sub-article the summary should be much less than at present. The purpose of the present structure and sections is not clear, and this may need a through examination. Why is "Motivation and scope" so titled for example? I'd like to see a history section. Technical terms are used and not explained. There needs to be a greater awareness and focus on the general reader. What is "asymptomatic screening"? And why doesn't that phrase appear in the either of the sources used to cite it? First impression is that this is a useful and valuable topic, and material has been gathered, but there needs to be a period of focus, shaping and writing it up into a useful article.

Concerns arising.

Structure
Comprehensiveness
World view
Images
Cites

Addressing concerns

Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and seek advice and assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine.
While the article deals with schools, this is not really an education issue, and there might be limited help available from Wikipedia:WikiProject Education, but people there might know about school policy on head lice in their particular region.
Other than the projects mentioned above, look at these books for further information on head lice in schools around the world.
Remove File:Sommer, Giorgio - Famille napolitaine.jpg and File:Épouillage2.jpg and find other images which don't have copyright issues.
While restructuring and expanding make sure that cites are used and checked. Check existing cites to ensure that they are relevant, and if the source document is long, consider identifying within the cite text (Example: <ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&q=head%20lice%20in%20schools&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp Lice in school books], Community Health Nursing, page 650</ref> "page 650" is identified within the cite text) where to find the information.

Conclusion

This article requires rewriting and restructuring. I suggest a period of work and when issues have been addressed, resubmitting for GA. It might be worth considering redrafting it as an article on the America "no nit" policy. SilkTork *^YES! 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.

[Harvard_and_cite.php-2] In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]