Talk:Traditional African medicine/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * ' 'In the Bight of Benin, the natives have been known to use the fat of a boa constrictor to cure gout and rheumatism, it also is thought to relieve chest pain when rubbed into the skin.'' although referenced, I don't have access to this journal. I find the statement somewhat surprising as boa constrictors are are a South and Central American species. Is it in fact another snake that is meant, such as the African Rock Python, which is a constrictor?
 * I checked the source again for this, and it does say boa contrictor, so should I just remove that whole statement if it doesn't appear to be accurate?
 * No leave it - I have checked this out and the African pythons are sometimes considered to be a subspecies of the boas. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They do not get the proper spiritual healing that their culture seeks, only biological treatments, which traditional African ideology. seems to be something missing here. which traditional African ideology what?
 * I made a number of copy-edits.
 * The article is reasonably well written but there is a certain amount of repetition of themes, such as the spiritual nature of traditional medicine. This occurs in most sections and seems somewhat unnecessary. Once established, it does not need to be endlessly repeated and it begins to look like padding.
 * The word "traditional" is also rather overused. A particularly striking example is the section Payments, where "traditional" occurs six times in four sentences!
 * The tone of the article is not quite encyclopaedic, rather more resembling an essay. This can be a good article but more refinement and avoidance of redundancy is needed.
 * One other thing, the title should be Traditional African medicine as per WP:MOS. Shall I move it for you?
 * I'm not sure how to move it, so that would be great, however, I also don't know how to redirect all the links I made linking back to this page and don't want to disrupt them.
 * I have moved it, a redirect has been created and I have ficed links on the other pages that link to this article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References look good, but Edgerton, Horton, Mills, Okpako and Stanley are not used in the footnotes. Why are they listed. As experienced editor H1nkles said in the WP:Peer review/Traditional African Medicine/archive1, you would be better off using the cite book, cite web and cite journal templates in the references section. ✅
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Not really focussed, see comments above. The article rambles a bit. Cut out redundancy. Once you have established something move on, no need to kepp re-iterating it. ✅
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Please leave any comments below this or below the specific points above. I am watching this page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you very much for addressing these concerns. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations, I look forward to seeing you develop more articles on Wikipedia and bringing them to Good Article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Please leave any comments below this or below the specific points above. I am watching this page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you very much for addressing these concerns. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations, I look forward to seeing you develop more articles on Wikipedia and bringing them to Good Article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)