Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Smoking/1

Smoking

 * • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delist. Issues raised below remain unfixed, and the article fails 1a, 1b (lead, words to watch), 2a-c, as well as issues of coverage and neutrality (3,4). Finally there are two non-free images without fair use rationales (6a). Geometry guy 23:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This article about smoking omits all reference to health effects. That's beyond one-sided. By the glaring omission, it advertises smoking.

Overall, it reads like carefully-crafted ad copy.

If a balanced presentation has anything to do with whether an article is good, this article is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdncntx (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Have you seen this section Smoking? There are however some fairly large unreferenced sections of text. And a bunch of the refs need proper formatting. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From the lead: "It has been suggested that smoking-related disease kills one half of all long term smokers but these diseases may also be contracted by non-smokers. A 2007 report states that about 4.9 million people worldwide each year die as a result of smoking ... medical studies have proven that smoking tobacco is among the leading causes of many diseases such as lung cancer, heart attacks, COPD, erectile dysfunction and can also lead to birth defects. The inherent health hazards of smoking ...". Not the best wording, but it's not exactly a glaring omission.
 * Health effects are also discussed in the history section, which briefly discusses the lung cancer studies and the industry's response - though it does give undue weight to the German tobacco policies - then there's a complete section on health effects, explicit discussion of the medical issues in the physiological effects section, some notes on addictive behaviour under psychology, and some brief notes referring to it in the culture & economics section. (The economics section, incidentally, is terrible - it's all knock-on effects and no discussion of, eg, the tobacco industry!)
 * That's not to say the article presents the most absolutely balanced viewpoint - I'd need to read it in more detail to be confident of that - but it certainly doesn't "omit all references" or "read like carefully-crafted ad-copy". Shimgray | talk | 11:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)