Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Reiki/1

Reiki

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Reiki/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Consensus stands for delisting. --Retrohead (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

C'mon... I would like an explanation as to why this is a "good article" in the natural sciences category with other pages such as biology and medicine that are science based. Well, to be honest, no person can answer that question honestly and therefore I am asking the page be reviewed. Quackery and pseudoscience has no place among science based articles. I am absolutely positive any and all persons, who abide by and trust in the scientific method, would aggressively nod in agreement with me.

The GA criteria that this does not meet is that it is at the very least not in the correct category. Reike is not a science, it is based on belief and spirituality. It is not based on the scientific method. Therefore it should not be in the natural science category and not be a "good article".

So officially the GA category it does not conform to is GA 2 - Verifiable [science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. ConcernedPrude (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delist. This article has been the subject of constant edit warring and it shows. There are terrible WP:NPV, WP:V, and WP:OR issues raised on the talk page that have gone unaddressed. These cut both ways (both pro- and anti-reiki). There is no chance these issues will be fixed anytime soon in light of the article currently being a battleground. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist - This article does not meet good article criteria. It is not:
 * Verifiable. Numerous sources throughout the article are cited by author last name and year only. Many of the other sources are of highly questionable validity. In the course of removing numerous clearly self-published sources, I have left numerous statements to be sourced or removed.
 * Broad in its coverage. It contains unnecessary detail, as evidenced by the limited number of reliable sources available on the subject relative to the depth present in the article.
 * Neutral. Given the lack of in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the amount of detail given on reiki beliefs is unsustainable.
 * Stable. While no one seems to agree on much else, I doubt anyone will contest this.

At present, there are over 30 cite needed tags, which I would categorize as a lot -- enough for an automatic fail, but everything is contentious here, so *I* won't do it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist as per the various reasons listed above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)