Talk:Sociology of health and illness/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. I know you guys are relatively new at this, so if I'm not explaining something properly or if you need help, feel free to ask either here or at my talk page. To start out, I should mention that you made a typo when nominating this for GA - I've corrected that here. I'll post an in-depth review as soon as it's ready; in the meantime, you can work on fixing up the last few things raised earlier on the talk page. Also, two preliminary suggestions: edit the lead to make it a more encompassing summary of the article (and please correct grammar, flow, etc), and focus on making the different sections coalesce into a single topic - make the sections work together as part of a coherent whole, with inter-relations between the different topics. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to students: I'm going to be largely off-wiki for the weekend (post to my talk with any dire emergencies), and thus will not post the detailed review until my return. It would help if you would work on addressing these preliminary concerns in the interim. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is on hold pending the resolution of the copyright problems pointed out by Piotrus below. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that I feel have been sufficiently dealt with have Done added to them. Comments not yet adequately addressed are marked with Not done. Please feel free to ask here or at my talk page if you have questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary review

Here are some basic suggestions on how to get this to GA status. I'll post a more in-depth review once some of these are addressed.

Writing and formatting

Lead needs to be copy-edited for grammar, the rest should be read over for fluency and consistency. Be careful not to write this like a university essay: encyclopedic tone is important, but jargon should be clearly explained. Sections need to relate more. " Not done Jargon and fluency are definitely not fixed; the rest have been partially addressed, but could still use work.

Accuracy and verifiability

Referencing format needs to be more consistent. Current refs 27 and 28 are missing their details. Web references need access dates and publisher/author. Tertiary sources like encyclopedias should be avoided wherever possible. A couple of the books are missing page numbers, and ISBNs would be good for those missing them.

Not done Still uses tertiary sources, some refs are still missing required information

Have we fixed this? T.starr.green 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No - see detailed review for remaining problems.

Broad

The lead covers some topics that should be covered in the main article but don't seem to be.

Not done Partially addressed, but there's still more to be done here.

Neutrality

Certain words introduce editorial bias - look at WP:WTA, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL for ideas on what needs to be changed. Be very careful to maintain a neutral point of view - sentences like "For most travelers visiting South America, any health risks are hugely outweighed by the tremendous pleasures and wonders that await you throughout the continent" are obviously biased and read like promotional material.

Not done Problematic sentence removed, but some editorial words remain.

Is this better T.starr.green 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Still problematic, sorry. See below for details.

Images, Stability

Some minor problems with images, to be covered in later review. Stability is fine.

Detailed review

In addition to the remaining above concerns, here is a more detailed list of issues to be addressed:

Some more specific examples have been requested, and are included below where applicable. Please keep in mind that these are examples, and other instances of these errors are likely even if not mentioned.

Writing and formatting

Given the article's size, the lead section should be at least 3 paragraphs long, and should summarize the contents of the article

Done Length is fine - summarizing could be done better

Avoid overusing vague terms of size (for example, "all" or "some") and additive terms (like "also" or "furthermore"

-This has been fixed, although i feel that there are someinstances when also is used that is beneficial to the page (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed, there are occasions when those terms are beneficial. However, in the majority of situations, they are not, and they are still overused.

Not done

"In some areas of Brazil roughly sixty percent of the inhabitants are use drugs and are HIV positive" - besides the grammatical error, this phrase is also problematic for its use of the word "some". Does some mean most? few? a certain city/state? certain kinds of areas (rural, urban, etc)? Furthermore, do you mean that the same 60% that are drug users are also HIV-positive? Are all those cases of HIV attributable to the drug use, or are there other contributing factors/risk-taking behaviours?

-This has been fixed (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Be careful of phrase like "has been" - these are often used incorrectly and can be overly vague

Not done

-This has been adressed. (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That particular instance is fine, but there are a couple of others...

I fixed this T.starr.green 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It looks the same to me.

"It has also been found that heredity has more of a bearing on health than social environment" - who found this? When was this found? How was this found? Is this still true?

Avoid using jargon without explanation. Also try to minimize verbosity. Your goal should be to explain the topic in a way that an average high-school student (or an adult with no sociological background) can easily understand

Done, although could be improved

"The objective of this paradigm..." - the average reader will have no idea what a paradigm is.

-Thus has been fixed (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Try to avoid using very long or short paragraphs - 4-6 sentences is a good average

Done

The first paragraph in "Methodology" is 16 sentences, the first paragraph of "Australia" is 2 sentences

    I think the paragraphs are at an appropriate length now.--NellRoss4 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article needs to be read through for clarity and flow, and some sections need copy-editing

Not done

The way the article is currently organized, everything is a subsection of "Historical background"

Done

Per WP:Headings, only the first word of a section heading should be capitalized unless using proper nouns

This has been fixed. --Acq123 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

While you've done a good job wikilinking terms, a) the same term should not be linked more than once or twice, and b) per WP:LINK, unfamiliar/contextualizing terms (like Zoser) should be linked, while most plain English terms (like humanity) should not. Furthermore, disambiguation links should be avoided (this page will help you find such links)

Not done

        Can you check if we are good on wikilinking now? --NellRoss4 (talk)

19:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Better, but there's still more to be done. Here's what I would suggest: look at the disambiguation links listed on this page, and either link directly to the relevant article or delink. Next (if possible - if not, try it yourself) find someone not in sociology and get them to read through the article. Any term they can define probably should not be linked; any term that they cannot define probably should (but only on first appearance). There are some exceptions (for example, health and illness should both be linked in the lead), but generally speaking that's a good guideline. Finally, find a computer that you have not used to work on this article (at the library, for example). Click on every blue link in order so it turns purple. If you come to a link that is already purple (meaning you opened that article with an earlier link), delete the link.

Avoid using personal pronouns like "we"

Done

"From his account we can see how factors outside the disease itself can have an impact on society" - should be reworded to avoid "we"

Make sure to give the reader some context to what you are talking about. For example, you discuss the Romans, and then proceed to general terms, but then you suddenly start talking about the Black report and the conservative government. What country are you in now?

Not done

This specific instance (the Black Report) has been fixed. Are there any other instances where this is a problem?--Acq123 (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic Code should be linked or identified; in the North America section you need to clearly differentiate between American (US) and North American; Aymara and Mapuche should be linked.

Avoid asking questions, especially if you don't answer them

Done - that's fine now

    I found one question on our wiki page. I have adjusted it, but are there any more instances where we state a question? --NellRoss4 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You argue that this topic is not the same as Medical sociology, but this article is in a category called "Medical sociology" - is there a better category?

Done

In the article we explain what the sociology of health and illness is. We have to explain how it differs from medical sociology in the article? T.starr.green 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

No, you do that in the lead already. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see a listing of categories, which includes Category:Medical sociology. Since you say that this article is not the same as Medical sociology, it shouldn't be in that category.

Someone has removed the medical sociology category. --Acq123 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" should come before References

Accuracy and verifiability

Citations should appear immediately after punctuation with no space, and there should then be a space before the next word (i.e. formatted "fact.[1] More")

Done

" These students apparently brought the virus back from Mexico and infected their classmates [30]." - citation should be after the period

I went through the whole article a few times, and I believe all of the references are properly placed now. --Acq123 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Australia part of Oceania?

I chose that heading because we were dividing up continents and Australia is considered a continent while Oceania is not, but did not want people to be confused and think that Oceania was not being included and only Australia as a nation was being discussed. I'd appreciate a suggestion on how to clarify that or improve it. Thanks! --Acq123 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have the first sentence say "The continent of Australia...", or just have it link to Australia (continent)

Thank you! I edited the heading and the first sentence to address this. --Acq123 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

North America is not a "nation", the "United State" does not exist, and there is more to North America than just the US and Canada - Mexico? Caribbean? Central America (potentially)?

Done

"Malaria affects every country in South America except two which are: Uruguay, Chile, and the Falkland Islands" - the Falklands are not a country, and counting them makes 3

This has been addressed. --Acq123 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Okay, but you now seem to be saying that malaria is found in the Falklands, where earlier you said it wasn't - which is correct?

Anything that is someone's opinion must be cited, as must any statistics, quotations, or unusual facts
I don't have access to many of your references, so I'll assume that they support what you say they do without plagiarizing. However, the people who have decided to use only one citation per paragraph should double-check to make sure everything in that paragraph is covered by the citation
Citations needed for:

Although Imhotep's achievements are based on speculation and conjecture, he is said to have written the Edwin Smith papyrus, which contains anatomical observations, ailments, and cures.

Done

This sentence is no longer in the article.--Dam59 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

became one of the most famous historians in antiquity

Done

Approximately 25% of the population died of the disease

Done

A good indicator of overall health is a populations growth. The faster the growth, the healthier the society is

Done

HIV/AIDS is the leading epidemic that affectvs the social welfare of Africa

       I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Done

Two-thirds of the worlds HIV population is located in Subaharan Africa. Since the epidemic started more than 15 million Africans have died by complications with HIV/AIDS

Done

       I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The HIV/AIDS epidemic is reducing the average life expectancy of people in Africa by twenty years. The age range with the highest death rates, due to HIV, are those between the ages of 20 and 49 years. The fact that this age range is when adults acquire most of their income they cannot afford to send their children to school, due to the high medication costs. It also removes the people who could help aid in responding to the epidemic in some way.

       I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Done

West Indian respondents whose lay culture teaches them to reject long-term drug therapy opted instead for folk remedies in higher numbers than the 'white' respondents. What can be seen here is that some people will choose to ignore a doctors expert advice and will employ 'lay consultation' instead.

Done

There are three forms of medication that will help cure Malaria a question of what if the person does not have the money or proper doctors to help them with the matter? Most books and literature that discuss Malaria talk about it in terms of tourists and not natives. They have a more lightherted tine because in most cases tourist have good doctors available so they can get the proper care to overcome the disease, but what about the natives?

Done, although should be reworded for neutrality and tone

There are entire paragraphs in "Africa" that aren't referenced

Done-I fixed this i believe (Jeaster89 (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The second and fourth paragraphs currently have no references.

All book citations need page numbers. It would be nice if they all had ISBNs

Not done

Citation 2, "Conrad, Peter (2008). The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives. Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 1-4292-0558-X." is a book and therefore needs page numbers

Referencing format should be more consistent

Not done

Compare Ref 11 (Fredrickson J, & Kanabus, A. Impact of HIV/AIDS on Africa. 2009.http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm) with Ref 15 (John Powers. "The Spread of Confucianism". Retrieved Dec. 1, 2009.). Both are web references, yet they are formatted quite differently.

Generally speaking, tertiary sources should be avoided

Not done

Tertiary sources include dictionaries, encyclopedias and some textbooks. One example is Citation 5 "Gordon Marshall. "health and illness, sociology of." A Dictionary of Sociology. 1998. Encyclopedia.com. 16 Nov. 2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>."

Sites like eNotes are generally not considered to be reliable sources

Not done

Identical sources should be named and formatted per WP:REFNAME (which most are, but there are a couple that aren't)

All of the multiple references should be fixed now. --Acq123 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Not quite, you missed a couple. For example, current refs 5 and 10 (Marshall) are the same.

Marshall reference has been fixed, I don't think there are any other repeats. --Acq123 (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All web references need access dates

Not done

Ref 12 (Epidemics: Malaria, AIDS, Other Disease: Post-colonial Africa. (2004). In Encyclopedia of African History. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/routafricanhistory/epidemics_malaria_aids_other_disease_postcolonial_africa) has no indication of when you accessed that site

Quick question: if we included a url link to a book when we referenced it, do we need to include an access date for that url? --Acq123 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)-This has been fixed. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Technically yes; that being said, I would be fine if that link was not included at all.

Also remember that any new material added after this review was done must also be adequately referenced.

Broad

Some areas are already in need of updating - for example, there are now many more than 6 swine flu cases reported in Canada (there's an epidemic brewing on native reserves which you could mention), and most are not connected with travel to Mexico

Not done

The article needs to be more cohesive and more focused on sociology of health and illness

Not done

How do you suggest this? T.starr.green 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of this is covered below, and in earlier comments above; other than that, take a look at the Methodology section, and make sure everything in the article is relevant to that.

Make sure the sections connect to each other somehow, especially in the region-focused sections

Not done

I thought that they were because each section includes information about most common diseases in that country, AIDS/HIV, religion, economy, and traditional/professional medicine. T.starr.green 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good way to organize things. However, the article as it stands doesn't actually do that. Take a look at the section on Africa for example: the entire section focuses on HIV/AIDS and what problems it causes for the society and the economy. It's a good discussion, but the scope is limited in a way that the section on Asia, for example, is not.

However..we all added aspects of disease, traditional, medicine and economics in each section, so i dont understand how it is not connecting. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Those aspects are present to some degree, yes; however, the scope is problematic. If you look for example at the Africa section, those aspects are discussed only in relation to HIV/AIDS, whereas in the Asia section they are discussed on a broader scale.

Neutrality

It is important to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times - neither conversational nor academic (wiki articles shouldn't sound like college papers)

Not done

"This topic requires a global approach of analysis because the influence of societal factors varies throughout the world. This will be demonstrated through discussion of the major diseases of each continent." - phrasing typical of college paper. "Sadly, enough people whom have chronic HDB will continue to get HDV" - "sadly" is a red flag for conversationalism, as it's an emotion word and should be avoided.

Look at WP:WTA and WP:Weasel - certain words introduce an editorial bias and should be avoided

Not done

"Not only does the child have the opportunity to lose their parents but they also may lose their childhood" - editorializing.

I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Edited the end of the 'Europe' section as it sounded very biased and strange, hopefully better now 212.90.83.50 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

No issues here

Images

"In response to the Spanish Influenza 1918" is a rather vague caption - what is the response? Why is this relevant? Furthermore, the Spanish Influenza is not covered in the article

Done

Reflexology also isn't covered, and more context should be given for that image

Done, but caption could use copy-editing

Both of the above images have been replaced with more relevant ones. --Acq123 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The caption for the map of Africa is a copy-paste of the description at the image page, which is redundant. Instead, give a summary of the description and contextualize is with what is being discussed in that section of the article

This has been addressed. --Acq123 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The caption of the obesity graph is somewhat redundant ("Data was collected or compiled between from 1996 to 2003"), body mass index and OECD should be linked

This has been addressed. --Acq123 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Captions for new images should be descriptive, grammatically correct and relevant

The caption for the alcohol map is "World map showing alcohol consumption around the world". That's helpful, but a) having "world" twice is redundant, and b) the reader needs some indication of what the colours mean