Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Haplogroup E-V38/1

Haplogroup E-V38

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. Although we don't have a consensus for this action, the issues that WeijiBaikeBianji raised shouldn't be ignored. — Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Looking over the article while following wikilinks from another article that has long been on my watchlist, I get the sense that this article is one of the best efforts of its sponsoring WikiProject, but I wonder if it meets current good article criteria, particularly in light of the considerable updates to the reliable sources content guideline and content guideline on reliable sources for medicine-related articles since this article passed GA review. My concern prompting a call for review is insufficient use of reliable secondary sources, rather than preliminary findings from primary research journals. There have been article changes since GA status was achieved, many by bots and by I.P. editors, with some talk page comments that the article may not be improving recently. (It does seem to have increased in length since it passed GA review.) I am not a subject matter expert, but I have good access to sources and expertise in related topics, so I thought I would refer this question to the community rather than handle it with an individual review. Many thanks to the editors who have already worked on the article, whom I will attempt to notify with talk page notices. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't a have a strong opinion on the GA status of this article, but I'll note that this is a genetics/physical anthropology article, not a medical article. I am of course always in favor of better sourcing, but MEDRS doesn't apply here, nor is MEDRS required for GA status. Also declaring a result with no discussion is premature; this isn't speedy or proposed deletions. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Two responses are possible to your thoughtful points. One is, if an article about human haplogroups and their distribution among different human populations isn't a medical article, what is? But more to the point of the GA review requested here, primary sources are not the preferred kind of sources for a Wikipedia article on any topic per WP:RS, and good article criterion number 2 is that the article is "Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research." Any onlooker here who can point to reliable secondary sources that can be used to verify the facts in the article will of course be doing a service to all of us in helping to improve the article. Thus far most of the source citations in the article are to what are plainly primary research reports, and the article talk page discussion suggests that there is not complete agreement among the article editors about the synthesis of the primary source findings in the article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There really are no secondary sources in phylogeny research. Everything is from primary sources. If that was the sole reason for the page being delisted, it should seriously be reconsidered. -- Brout8 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)