Talk:Female hysteria/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

The sum total of the GA review for this article in 2005 is this edit summary. Times have changed: GAs are now actually required to satisfy WP:V, which means that they are not term papers supported only partially by a small number of unrepresentative sources. They must be encyclopedic and verifiable, with no original research. Problems have been raised about this article on the talk page but have not been addressed. I intend to delist this article shortly. Geometry guy 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

A start has been made on improving this article, but so much needs to be done that renomination is necessary.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
See Words to avoid: there's a lot of editorial opinion here. It needs to be sourced, rephrased or removed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The list of references is too narrow for the topic. There are many unsourced claims and the article presents a thesis which may amount to original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article focuses on the sociological viewpoint. Historical and medical viewpoints need expansion and sourcing.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article doesn't really present a neutral perspective, but this is a consequence of the other issues rather than a strong indication of bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The first image contradicts the idea that pelvic massage amounts to anterior vaginal wall massage, but this may be a problem with the article rather than the image.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article has been delisted per above. Geometry guy 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]