Wikipedia:Featured article review/Autism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Autism

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Medicine FAR and Psychology. Sandy (Talk) 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is no longer up to featured status. It has 12(!) {{fact}} tags on it, and a couple of sentences are either weaselly or POV. Examples of the latter include:

• Some now speculate that autism is not a single condition but a group of several distinct conditions that manifest in similar ways.(weaselly)

• Parents who looked forward to the joys of cuddling, teaching, and playing with their child may feel crushed by this lack of expected attachment behavior. (POV as well as a few other problems)

If these problems are addressed I will happily support its remaining a featured article. Until such time, I beleive it should be delisted--Acebrock 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The weasle words and broad patches of uncited text are problematic (indicative of POV and OR), but the article has far bigger problems than just the cite tags and weasle words.
  • It doesn't conform to WP:MEDMOS
  • It is severely undercited, and relies on some sources which are personal or support group websites rather than medical sources.
  • The lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article.
  • External links have become a link farm for support groups, see WP:EL and WP:NOT
  • See also needs pruning and/or other articles incorporated into text.
  • Infobox isn't complete.
  • Article isn't tightly focused on its topic, with entire sections discussing other conditions.
  • Problem with Fair Use image.
  • Doesn't rely on highest quality medical sources, and References appears to have grown piecemeal; it's not clear those references were actually used in the article.
  • The Table of Contents shows an unorganized approach to the topic, and could benefit by following suggested sections per WP:MEDMOS, modified as needed for a neuropsychiatric condition.
  • There's a red link in See also.
  • There are external links. jumps.
  • It relies on daughter articles which are in very bad shape, speculative, and poorly sourced.
  • It is not comprehensive
    • Treatment is inadequate
    • Causes is inadequate
    • There is no Diagnosis or History section
    • There is no Prognosis section, or Prevention/Screening section
  • Sociology section could benefit from being trimmed and making better use of Summary Style
  • It has numerous mentions of individual researchers or research institutions, which look like attempts to promote those people rather than an encyclopedic entry.
  • It duplicates the DSM criteria, which is a copyright violation.
• In order to maintain FA, a serious and organized effort at improving this article is needed. Sandy (Talk) 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Sandy, however I'm sure her approach from the [Asperger syndrome] article is very inappropriate. The current autism article is extremely biased and *published* research that is no longer relevant needs to go. --Rdos 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Rdos, I think that a reviewer's approach elsewhere is irrelevant. Here, all that matters is improving the article at issue. I, too, agree with Sandy's points. And while we're at it, the writing is sorely in need of improvement. Here are random examples from the lead for "Characteristics".
  • "Typically-developing infants"—Isn't there a better standard term? The hyphen after -ly is wrong.
  • In a contrast, the wording should be equivalent, not "individuals who have autism are physically indistinguishable from those without".
  • "Enlarged brain size appears to accompany autism, but the effects of this are still unknown." False contrast: why "but"? A semicolon would present a more logcial relationship between these assertions.
  • "Much of this is due to the somewhat vague diagnostic criteria for autism, paired with an absence of objective diagnostic tests. Nevertheless, professionals within pediatrics, child psychology, behavior analysis, and child development are always looking for early indicators of autism in order to initiate treatment as early as possible for the greatest benefit."—"Somewhat" adds nothing but uncertainty. Just get rid of it. "Paired with" is not idiomatic in this context. The contrast in "Nevertheless" is unclear. The subsequent assertions require referencing (a long-shot that all of those professionals do the same?). And there's too much crammed into the last sentence. Tony 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, little improvement in concerns raised. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are comprehensiveness, sources, prose, POV/OR, lead, and images. Sandy (Talk) 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)