Talk:Self-surgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-surgery has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

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.