Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sleep hygiene/1

Sleep hygiene

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sleep_hygiene/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No clear consensus for delisting. Trusting in Sandy's comment that content has improved. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not Good Article level work in my view. See discussion Education_noticeboard/Incidents. I started cleaning it up and  did more. There are several places where writing still needs work (vague generalizations in lead); there are several sourcing issues; It is still new (can't call it stable yet. Please re-review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been working collaboratively with other wikipedia editors and reviewers for three weeks on this article, and will continue to be very responsive to feedback. I believe in providing readers with informative, broad, neutral, and well-researched coverage of any topic, and it is my priority to accomplish this with the current sleep hygiene article. I hope that we can work together to facilitate article improvement, instead of removing the good article status. Thank you. leslierrn (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again, (1) I spent 8 hours today on the page responding to feedback. I did this to try to address reviewers concerns, although I did not realize that and  believed the GA status to be a fluke. I understand the situation, although I am of course disappointed by the way everything was dealt with. In defense of other PhD students, I think we are definitely capable of contributing meaningfully to wikipedia, and any messiness is not done out of carelessness. Constructive feedback can really help us improve our articles. If there is a way of salvaging content that took days to write, that would seem preferable to simply deleting sections. (2) There was also a lot of talk about my course's goal with this final project. To clarify, our grades were not at all dependent on achieving GA. I have been teaching sleep hygiene for years, so I thought that my content might be worth at least trying for GA - that's the reason I submitted. Also, our professor had great intentions with this final project. The point was to help translate scientific knowledge to a broader audience - I believe that getting students with expertise involved with Wikipedia is a great way to expand the available topics. I hope everyone can also see the value in that, even if they believe that the content it not perfect quality. I will let the wikipedia process take over from here. Leslierrn (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . I have not had time in the last 24 hours to follow your edits, but I will do so as soon as possible (within one or two days).  Your continued dedication to the article is admirable, and I'm sorry you were shortchanged on your earlier GA review.  Please know that this process is slower, and it is unlikely that the article will lose GA status without a chance for continued improvement:  you should get here at GAR the review that you should have gotten the first time around-- one which will allow you to improve as a Wikipedia editor, and hopefully encourage you to stay on board for the long-term!  You've done a good job in here, but together we should be able to improve the article up to GA status.  I will weigh in as soon as I can on article talk and your user talk.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for clarifying the intended purposed of GAR. All of the talk boards seemed to indicate that the belief was that this article should never have been GA, and that we should be re-considering supporting student contributors. I would love for this to be a learning opportunity and get more feedback. Looking forward to seeing the article improve through this collaboration. Leslierrn (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , while the article may have been prematurely listed as a Good Article, that is not an uncommon occurrence in the World of Wikipedia. There is time in this deliberative phase to make sure the article meets GA standards, and you're headed in the right direction!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A few additional comments Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could use a consistent referencing style such as the one explained here WP:MEDHOW. Sometimes cite templates are used and sometimes not
 * Language should be adjusted per the advice provided here WP:MEDMOS
 * , a consistent referencing style is not part of WP:WIAGA (it is a requirement for WP:WIAFA). For a GA-level article, IMO the citations are fine.  Also, even at the FA-level, the requirement for consistent citations has to do with how the citation renders in the article (they all have to look the same), which is unrelated to the method used to generate the citations (it is possible to have partial citation templates and partial manual citations that "render" the same final result). I have a few nitpicks left on the talk page (the college student section could use better, secondary sourcing, as could the mention of instruments for measuring sleep hygiene, but other than that, I think we've worked through many of the issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

, now that many of the issues have been worked out, I'm wondering if you might have a look vis-a-vis GA status? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do this later today. I have to say that I'm not really on top of sourcing policy for medical articles, but I can comment on other issues. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sourcing per MEDRS is within striking range now. The paragraph on college students is sourced to a primary study, and could be better sourced, but I doubt any of that content is debateable.  And on the Assessment section, a couple of those are primary sources, and it would be ideal to have secondary reviews attesting to the validity of those measurement instruments, but I likewise doubt those are controversial.  So, I don't know how those caveats relate to the GA criteria ... will leave it to you.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: The assessment section has a new source that reviewed the first three instruments, and replicated use of one of them in a new sample. The primary sources have now been deleted. In general, these three sleep assessment tools are cited in about a dozen sleep medicine textbooks, and are indeed non-controversial. The content on the college student paragraph has been supported by a number of other subsequent research studies (by those study authors, and new authors), but as it is relatively newer research, a review has not been written. So the findings have been replicated, by the other sources I could cite would still be primary sources. I hope that helps! Leslierrn (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)