Talk:No nit policy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).

Comments
1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;  and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Nicely written, though tends to use jargon.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, 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;   and (c) it contains no original research.
 * Good range of cites, though ones tested do not alwways support the material, and there are areas uncited.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Needs history coverage and world coverage. Main focus is on one policy (no-nit), and lack of awareness of other policies/treatements. Too much material on describing a head-louse.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Difficult to determine. There is already a bias in the article toward coverage of the no-policy and little else.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;   and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Two images File:Sommer, Giorgio - Famille napolitaine.jpg and File:Épouillage2.jpg are not allowed in all countries. As those images are decorative rather than essential it might be fairer to not use them.


 * Starting review.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and valuable topic. Bullet points in the lead section are unusual and it doesn't look attractive. Weasel words - "The most well-known aspect of school head lice policy is the "no-nit policy", coupled with a geographic focus on America (no-nit policy) that assumes the rest of the world will understand. Current images are helpful, though one of a school nit examination, especially as the lead image, would be helpful. There appears to be a good range of sources, and most information in the article is sourced - though the bullet points in lead and first section appear unsourced. The first paragraph of "Immediate exclusion from school" is speculative rather than encyclopedic - and the rhetorical questions are inappropriate. I'd like to see a greater world view, or the article turned into one that is clearly an examination of the American policy - School head lice policy in United States of America. Query the title. Head lice treatment in schools perhaps? That would allow coverage of material on school treatment of head lice that began before there was any policy, and for local treatments that don't follow policy, but are effective. This is a recent article as a standalone, having been broken out of Head-louse infestation on 12 December by User:Noca2plus who has developed the article almost entirely alone, and is the nominator. There have been no conflicts, and the move was uncontested. While there should be some description of a head louse, as this is a sub-article the summary should be much less than at present. The purpose of the present structure and sections is not clear, and this may need a through examination. Why is "Motivation and scope" so titled for example? I'd like to see a history section. Technical terms are used and not explained. There needs to be a greater awareness and focus on the general reader. What is "asymptomatic screening"? And why doesn't that phrase appear in the either of the sources used to cite it? First impression is that this is a useful and valuable topic, and material has been gathered, but there needs to be a period of focus, shaping and writing it up into a useful article. This article requires rewriting and restructuring. I suggest a period of work and when issues have been addressed, resubmitting for GA. It might be worth considering redrafting it as an article on the America "no nit" policy.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Initial inspection.
 * Concerns arising.
 * 1) Structure
 * 2) Comprehensiveness
 * 3) World view
 * 4) Images
 * 5) Cites
 * Addressing concerns
 * 1) Look at Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and seek advice and assistance from WikiProject Medicine.
 * 2) While the article deals with schools, this is not really an education issue, and there might be limited help available from WikiProject Education, but people there might know about school policy on head lice in their particular region.
 * 3) Other than the projects mentioned above, look at these books for further information on head lice in schools around the world.
 * 4) Remove File:Sommer, Giorgio - Famille napolitaine.jpg and File:Épouillage2.jpg and find other images which don't have copyright issues.
 * 5) While restructuring and expanding make sure that cites are used and checked. Check existing cites to ensure that they are relevant, and if the source document is long, consider identifying within the cite text (Example: "page 650" is identified within the cite text) where to find the information.
 * Conclusion