Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:49, 5 November 2008

This pertains to the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder

Suggestion for discussion

I'm new to the process of FAC, and I'm having real problems following the discussions on this page. Everything is being discussed under one big section, it's hard to see where one topic ends and another starts, and even who has written what. I was going to look into the issue of sources for Beck Depression Inventory – that particular discussion is scattered over three different places on the page... it just gives me a headache! I'm wondering: Is it possible that this page could be kept just a list of people's different issues with the article, and keep actual discussion of those issues on the talk page? That would make more sense to me. I don't know what FAC policy is. /skagedal 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC pages are no different than talk pages: responses should be threaded per WP:TP and WP:TALK. Unfortunately, interruptions happen regularly, and I seem to be the only who goes back and corrects faulty threading, attaches sigs, and adds the {{interrupted}} template; it's very time consuming, involving stepping back through the diffs to see who wrote what. I put out regular reminders to follow talk page threading conventions, to little avail :-) If anyone has more time to step back through the diffs and sort out who said what, it would help. More helpful would be correct threading to begin with, and keeping long discussions of specific issues on the article talk page, with the FAC focusing on whether the article meets WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The original Question - I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression,". Are you saying in the U.S. or where?

Subsequently 18 entries were made in that thread under my question, many of them off topic, but including my request for a source, arguments that a primary source was better than the secondary review source as I was requesting, etc. My question was never answered, despite my repetition of my question half way down the thread:

Back to my original Question: I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression".

More non answers given, ending with a slam at me, "Thaks for the non-asked for little speech." My question was still was not answered.

Perhaps there could be a standard that if a post occurs under a question, it should be responsive to the question, or at least address the question. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for some of the interruptions, since some of them were mine: it is not good idea to write inside a comment but it is the only way to answer... and then debates comes... I really do not know how to do it well (and as far as I see I am not the only one). Specially sorry also for the "Thaks for the non-asked for little speech." since it was also mine: I was quite "hot" at that moment and I did not take very well your comment before since I understand why secondary sources are better than primary; I never tried to debate that. I should have taken a deep breath. My only point was that in scientific journals usually with that seminal reference would have been enough.

I have tried to search for refs for that sentence (is a widely used questionnaire for diagnosis), but right now I almost feel it is impossible (lets see if Casliber finds one). I have found many primary sources articles saying that sentence, but it is so "common knowledge" for them that they do not provide any new references for it. The only refs they give date back to the early 90's (like the one I gave); so right now I do not really know how to procceed. Eliminate the sentence? Give a the primary source and the old source as enough? Any other ideas?--Garrondo (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrt the interruptions, I try to get participants to view the page from the perspective of the person who has sit down and read through the entire thing and sort out who said what and where things stand. I can't seem to convince others to look at the entire FAC page from that perspective, and sometimes I have to read FACs diff by diff to know what has been dealt with. Sometimes interruptions are inevitable: what would be very helpful would be if the interruptors added the {{interrupted}} template themselves whenever they are not responding under a signature, and if nominators would periodically peruse their FACs to make sure they are comprehensible, and do any of that cleanup as needed. When I sit down to read FAC, and have to spend half an hour to an hour sorting just one FAC, it doesn't bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll use the template from now on or something similar. Thanks SandyGeorgia.--Garrondo (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia for a very helpful response! I didn't know about {{interrupted}} before, I'll help out with adding it when I can. Hope that some day soon MediaWiki will get better capabilities of managing threaded discussions... /skagedal 20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved

• Followup comment - Note that the issues I complained about above have not been addressed. As stated above, I have only examined a small part of the article for accuracy in wording and sources. There is no point in doing more, given the lack of responses that actually address issues I raised. Given this, I remain skeptical about the accuracy of the rest of the article. — Mattisse 17:46, 3 November 2008 — continues after insertion below

To Mattise - We're getting there, there is no need to repeat yourself. Keeping comments brief, constructive and to the point is appreciated. I come here in my own free time to edit as I enjoy it - I do not enjoy being subjected to reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom. I am trying; it is a big article and there is alot to cover. I am sorry you were reverted which set you off like this, and I am sorry your comments were interspersed above. I think that casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack. I advise you to keep comments short, constructive and to the point and avoid making assumptions about others. Lengthy rants have the appearance of filibustering to disrupt this to make a point, I hope that is not the case. I welcome your constructive feedback and will try to work to address concerns. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Apology - I am sorry. I only repeated myself because I have asked many times and these issues were never addressed and I felt like they were being skipped over and the topic changed. I am sorry that you interpret my comments as " reams of self-righteous invective". I regret that you interpret my comments as "casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack". I get your hint and will not comment any more on the article. This has been an unpleasant experience for me also, and I am sorry if I let my frustration show. I wish you the best tn this endeavor. I guess I got too caught up in the subject matter. Again, I apologize. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• thanks for that - (sigh of relief) I know this is an important topic to get right and I have generally kept awya from articles liek this as it becomes not-fun very quickly, but I do think I have something to offer in hauling this one to featured status. I don't want you to leave completely, the points you hav raised have been very valid, but as you can see with an article of this size and breadth, it is a huge task, and my time is limited, furthermore where I am at the moment ther computer is loading WP pages very slowly, which makes rapid editing of large articles problematic. As long as people strike objections when done and keep it brief the page is quite manageable. It is tricky when there are a plethora of sources out there. Snowman's contributions are important as I realise just about everyone till now who has commented is pretty familiar with biological and medical material, hence limiting our ability to make it accessible to broader population. We are getting there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• No personal attacks - However, I am upset at your personal attacks on me and the inflammatory language you used. I have done the best I can and I have not engaged the type of personal "rant" agains another that you have. You complain that I make "a big call without supplying examples" but if I then repeat my examples (already repeated many times) I am accused of "reams of self-righteous invective". When you say I engaged in "casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack", I do not know what you mean, unless you are referring to my echoing Snowman's comments. You say "I am sorry you were reverted which set you off like this", when that is not true. I had forgotten than and it is small potatoes anyway. Plese don't read my mind. I take your comments above as a personal attack on me. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(big breath) It is pretty clear both of our emotional reserves are running a bit low on this and our interpretations are going to differ. I am trying to think of a way forward from this. Especially as my computer is loading WP pages slowly, dredging up diffs is going to be extremely time-consuming, time which I'd rather spend on the article. I am waving an olive branch/white flag/whatever, I just don't want to keep arguing here, so rather than pursuing that, I am sorry your feelings are hurt, you have offered input which is valuable and will take a few days to address and I will try to get to it. Can we please just move on? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To both Mattisse and Snowman - I will attempt to go through specific issues raised on this list for as long as the FAC remains open. If it closes then so be it. If you choose not to participate, that is your business and I am sure the closer will look at the situation/consensus once time is reached. Your call Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)