Hi, I have just added my second set of comments to the WCa FAC review. In my comments, I point out that the second paragraph of the lead has errors in every sentence. I did the same yesterday for the first paragraph of the lead, and for a paragraph in another section. The main author of the FAC, Dineshkannambadi, to his credit, does respond in short order to the comments and sample copy-edits I provide, but I'm afraid his improvements don't extend much beyond that. It is my opinion that the article can't be fixed on the fly in the FAC process itself: it has too many errors of grammar (simple subject-verb agreement problems, dangling modifiers, ...), style (convoluted, discursive) and cohesion (things are said out of order, transitions are abrupt) for that. I am myself traveling now and will likely not have any internet connection for the next three weeks, or the connection might be unreliable (like the kind I managed to find for this post). I do understand that you don't really judge the articles yourself, but rather only whether consensus has been reached in the FAC discussion. However, I just wanted to state that my (likely) silence in the coming days should not be interpreted as a sign of consensus. user:Mattisse, who weighed in earlier today, pretty much echoed my verdict on the article. Perhaps some other editor should review the FAC. I noticed that user:Awadewit is a superb editor, perhaps she/he could be persuaded to review it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I follow Mattisse's edits because of previous interaction. This is a concern. For these reasons, I'm going to be leaving this FAC to Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that entry to KNM. I know it is within his right to allow Dinesh to wipe out my weeks of careful edits by a cut and paste instead of a Move and not protect me as he does other editors. I tore my hair out over a span of many months copy editing several of Dinesh's articles so they would reach FA status and waded through the sort of prose that Fowler & Fowler is doing now. The copy/paste is why I know longer am willing to copy edit for Dinesh. It is not an excuse, I know, for intemperate language to KNM. However, I acknowledge my intemperance and very much seek to preserve your good opinion. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take such a poor attitude toward the article. I over reacted when I realized what a mess it was. It never should have been nominated for FAC in my opinion. It is too reminiscent of Psychopathy with editors not understanding the subject matter and overly depending on PMID. Fortunately, this editor appears much more amenable. But someone is going to have to put a whole lot of work into the article. I am way too tired and there are others who are picking up on its very fundamental problems, typical of psych articles. Regards, Mattisse 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but it seems you misunderstand the role of the PMID courtesy link. I hope you'll review that off-FAC, as it's kind of jumbled the FAC. PMIDs are only courtesy links to point towards where to find the actual article, and Wiki has no requirement that our full sources be online, so we shouldn't really disagree with the source unless we've read the full text ourselves. An alternate is to request a quote from the article on the talk page if you have doubts about something. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps putting the courtesy link should be skipped when it is only an advertisement with no Abstract. In any event, PMID links are inappropriate in an article on an established DSM disorder, or any established area. Any established DSM diagnosis has plenty of references without resorting to PMID. Even when relevant to an article, PMID links should be used with discretion, after evaluation of methodology etc. Otherwise, it is all to easy to make something look well referenced when the citations are not supporting the premise. PMID is really primary sources with only a semi-peer review to get published in a journal that accepts single case studies and studies with low samples and questionable statistical techniques. I am not saying every article in PMID is bad or useless, but primarily at wikipedia PHID seems to be misused as a reference as almost every article can be referenced to some PMID article. Their use should be scrutinized rather than just accepted. LHvH accepted ludicrous PMID citations because he did not know any better -- sounded good to him. Mattisse 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should always use the PMID, because it shows where/how to locate the article, and PMID links are always appropriate. Please see WP:MEDMOS; perhaps your confusion can be cleared up at the talk page there? The PMID is only a courtesy link, separate from an analysis of the actual full text of the study. We don't accept or reject PMIDs; we accept or reject the full studies. The PMIDs only lead us to the full studies. What is incorrect on the FAC are the statements about dead links, as PMIDs are only courtesy links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused. We have differing standards for what is appropriate for a professional article in psychology. Your standards, in my world, would work for a dissertation or a journal article, but definitely not for an article such as this one, meant for a wider audience and making statements purporting to be fact or at least mainstream thinking. This is accomplished only by citing a wide range of sources of people who have some standing in the field. If a series of PMID were assembled systematically to support a point, then one could write an article on that point using the PMID series of articles to demonstrate it. However, one would also have to add articles that disagree with the article's premise. This is called critical thinking rather than advocacy. Sorry, but I am shocked that this sort of thing is considered O.K. And saddened. Mattisse 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't determine if this is a misunderstanding or a true disagreement, since we're still not speaking the same language. WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS are clear, as are Wiki guidelines on courtesy links, WP:RS and WP:V. I'm still unclear why you think an article is sourced to abstracts; an article is sourced to the journal-published literature, with courtesy links to abstracts. I'm concerned that a FAC has been affected by a misunderstanding of courtesy links and judgments about an article without others having (apparently) accessed the full text of the sources. A series of PMIDs don't support text; journal articles that happen to have courtesy links to PMIDs are used to cite text. I see Casliber is doing fine at sorting out the content issues, but this misunderstanding about PMIDs is a diversion, as is the discussion of the walled garden of other attachment articles (RAD is the official diagnosis, it is the only article that should be considered, and the other articles aren't relevant to the FAC discussion, nor is it Fainites' responsibility to clean them up and get them merged and deleted). This conversation is putting me a position of COI wrt FAC closings, so please take up clarification of PMID courtesy links at the talk page of WP:MEDRS with uninvolved parties. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You are misunderstanding me. Please stop flinging those links at me. I do not see in the links you provide any sections that discuss the level of scientific proof needed, regardless of the proper method of citing. The instructions are only on how to format the citing properly, plus a few rudimentary instructions about writing medical articles. Those links you provide actually encourage the irresponsible citing of sources seen in articles like Psychopathy. That editor justified her cites as correct because she was using the right method to cite and she was using PMID. The fact that the articles she was citing were misleading was irrelevant.

You obviously disregarded my attempts to explain above as you did not address substantive issues.

The citing method is not the issue for me as you insist it is, although I do not think it is O.K. to link to someone's summary of a source without clarifying it is someone else's summary and not the same level of sourcing as citing the source itself. The issue for the editors of these articles is their ability to think clearly and critically about a subject matter. I just read a post to you, filled with misunderstandings about his subject matter, stating a court case determined repressed memories have been declared admissible etc. - a total misunderstanding of common law and how it works. The repressed memory issue is not a settled matter but an evolving one as the case law grows. The same person links to an editorial without seeming to notice, apparently thinking an editorial is an admissible link without labelling it as such is fine. I give up trying to explain to you my point, as it is not a matter of consulting the links you repeated offer. Those links are for people who apparently have not a clue what they are doing.

I tried to explain in my last post what I meant and I guess you just do not understand. I can only think you have a very low opinion of my intelligence if you think my reading over and over those two links will suddenly open my eyes. I actually feel insulted. Never fear, I will not get mixed up further in such articles. Mattisse 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Reactive_attachment_disorder&oldid=192181063

One of the problems on the Che Guevara article is that User:Polaris999 is the only editor left. The newest editor only recently became an editor (14 November 2007) and has exclusively edited this article and another Che article. My interest is more in memory of User:Zleitzen, a former editor of the article who was my editing friend before he left. What is a way of getting more interest in the article? Since User:Zleitzen left, the Caribbean and Cuban portals are neglected and have been warned about their continued existence. Can you think of a way to get others interested? And is there a way of getting a monitor or supervisor, as apparently there is an editing war between, User:Redthoreau and User:C.J. Griffin. Regards, Mattisse 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anyone who can take over where Zleitzen left off, and getting involved in trying to solve other editors' edit wars never bodes well. The article has fallen into disrepair; how to fix it is kinda beyond FAR if no one can fill Zleitzen's shoes (although Zleitzen's version may have had some POV as well). I witnessed once a sad event, when Yomangani proposed a reasonable lead, that didn't work out very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right, I know. Best just to let it happen I guess. Mattisse 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you are doing. We would be a hopeless mess without you. User:Jmabel turning up is wonderful and a sort of vote of faith. I realize how busy you are and what this represents in terms of a chunk out of your life. Thank you. Mattisse 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be stupendous if people remember, when the going gets rough, to stay on topic on the talk page. This morning I was tearing my hair out every time it popped on my watchlist :-) I don't imagine it will stay this easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to participate in this kind of atmosphere. You demand a certain type of citation. You demand other things. This is getting unpleasant. Although I know you like to joke at our expense on your talk page, I cannot wait for the day that I can take it off my watchlist. Sorry to let the others down, but I regret I ever started the Che Guevara thing. I will stay away from any further articles you are involved in. Mattisse 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demand? Joke at your expense? Where? Mattisse, are you being oversensitive because you misread a response I made to VT as if it was directed at you, and misinterpreted? Since I am about to embark on a lot of work on CG tomorrow, please let me know if we should call it off. I'll respect whatever you decide; CG was your nomination, and I've no vested interest other than my offer to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_15#Bowing_out

If you want to make an enemy out of me you can and you will. I will be sorry for that. I don't think it is worth it over a date, but if you think the other three issues that resulted in two reversions on FACs are worth it, then O.K. That still does not obscure the fact that there is no such thing as Attachment theory, something that apparently you hold against me. We come from very different worlds. I think that is the problem. I do not come from yours. I am sorry for that but I decided that I could not remake my identity for Wikipedia and will have to just go ahead and be myself. I do know the subject area of Psychology, however. But I am getting the feeling I should stay away from FAC or incur your hostility. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Epbr123 2
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurmsook&diff=218320736&oldid=218317627

You are scary in your power. I hope you do not penalize articles because I do some copy editing on them. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the poor editor of Eric Brewer (ice hockey) with your references to User:Epbr123's "run through" since it was established by you previous efforts that all he did was add "The" to "New York Times" and remove the spelled out numbers and made them real numbers at the beginning of sentences. Other than that, he contributed no substantial editing to the article. You seem to want to prove me a "bad person" but please do not do it at the expense of an innocent newbie editor. I suppose one benefit of your frenzy is that now you will have some obligation to give the article more attention. I notice that once I enter the scene, you tend to do that. So, its good for the article in question.

Why don't you just be straight up with the guy. The last time I was involved in a FAC sports article the n-dash was the rage for scores. Articles would not pass if that were not the case. Now apparently that is reversed. If that has changed, please just be informative. I would like to know the answer myself now, since apparently the rules have changes and now scores require hyphens, I gather from your edit summaries. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]