This review is transcluded from Talk:Havana syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 23:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 04:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The wording here is very repetitive (also known as WP:PROSELINE. There are several parts of this article which could be further simplified.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article does not comply with the MOS specifically: MOS:LAYOUT: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings." There is a lot of very short headings or subheadings in this article. " Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read." There are many single sentence paragraphs, even within the lead. "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." There is about three different citation styles used throughout this article.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	ref list does exist. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm not sure if news articles are the most reliable topic for this. I will note that I did not do a source spot check. There is also several unsourced statements. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Hard to assess because of the unsourced info. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Shows as copyvio issues but that is just the quoted material. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems appropriate but I am unsure. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Seems appropriate but I am unsure. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems appropriate but I am unsure. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable as it will ever be. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	no copyright issues. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some comments below. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm failing this article for a couple reasons. Firstly, the nominator asked me to fail it as they would like a new reviewer because of differing opinions on GAC. This article also has quite a few issues that should ideally be fixed before renomination including the sources, prose, and MOS issues. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just some initial comments, the lead should be around 4 paragraphs. You have 5 right now. Havana syndrome is characterized by a variety of symptoms, including dizziness, headaches, pain, and cognitive problems. It is not a recognized medical diagnosis, and it is not recognized as a disease by the medical community. and It had tasked JASON to consider all available data and evaluate potential directed energy mechanisms with regard to their ability to produce the reported effects. and In response to Havana syndrome, United States Senator Susan Collins introduced a bill (S. 1828), cosponsored by a bipartisan group of nine other senators, that would close a loophole in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act that would normally not cover damage to organs such as the brain and heart. appears to be unsourced. You've also got a lot of very short sections that could be combined as well as one sentence paragraphs that should be combined. There is also some WP:PROSELINE going on throughout the article. This is all I have for first impressions but should keep you busy while I continue my review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great feedback. I'm starting to work on those issues. One issue that may need further discussion is WP:PROSELINE ("When writing articles, begin paragraphs with the date sparingly. Instead, condense the text and focus on the main ideas."). That essay has some good ideas, but it may be hard to apply those suggestions to Havana Syndrome (H.S.) article because the H.S. article is influenced by two major factors, that in some ways conflict with WP:PROSELINE:

1) H.S. is _heavily_ reported-on in mainstream media (New York Times, BBC, CNN, Fox, etc). Virtually every single medical or scientific study that is published gets reported-on prominently, and the US public is strongly interested in the results of the studies. In particular: everyone wants to know what the cause of H.S. is. The article, naturally, should mention these very newsworthy studies.

2) The WP:MEDRS guideline states that any medical/biological info from primary sources (which 99% of the papers on H.S. are) is discouraged, and if primary sources are included in an article, the editor can only restate the conclusions of the primary-source paper. Editors are not permitted to pick-and-choose the primary sources; and they cannot combine sources in a prose fashion that might suggest relationships or consensus (in the scientific realm). Conversely, WP:MEDRS encourages secondary sources, and states that only secondary sources can be used to draw conclusions. Unfortunately, there are only three secondary studies on H.S, and they are not very in-depth. Those 2ndary sources are all represented in the section Havana_syndrome#Causes.

A result of these two factors is that the Causes section is the official medical judgement, and only 2ndary sources are used there; and all the primary studies, which are newsworthy and of historical importance, are recorded in the History of Investigations section.

That History of Investigations section is where we run afoul of the suggestions made in the WP:PROSELINE essay. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way change the History section to adhere the WP:PROSELINE suggestions without violating the principles of WP:MEDRS ... because if an editor starts combining studies into a single large paragraph; or re-categories the studies into a scheme that is not chronological (e.g. grouping the studies by conclusion); or re-wording the study conclusions in encyclopedic prose ... all those editorial efforts would be (justifiably) challenged by editors based on WP:MEDRS. In other words, the History section is only permitted by WP:MEDRS to the extent it is a history of newsworthy events (some of which happen to be medical studies).

In contrast, we can look at the at the online Brittanica encyclopedia article on H.S. .... that article is not constrained by WP:MEDRS, so the author was able to craft a concise, flowing readable-prose article, and they don't have any WP:PROSELINE issues.

That said, we can put our heads together and see if there is some path forward that minimizes the WP:PROSELINE issues without violating other, weightier guidelines of WP. Noleander (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you fully understand what proseline is. I'm just asking that you change up the wording a bit. For example under the section "Elsewhere in Asia" you have two pargraphs. In August 2021, it was reported that two American diplomats were evacuated from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam, after incidents of Havana syndrome were reported. and In September 2021, an aide-de-camp of CIA director William J. Burns reported symptoms consistent with those of Havana syndrome on a diplomatic visit to India. Which one could instead be written as An aide-de-camp of CIA director William J. Burns reported symptoms consistent with those of Havana syndrome during a diplomatic visit to India in September 2021.. Use this same stratergy of rearranging the setence structure throughout the article and you can reduce the proseline issues and make the article more readable. I don't see how this violates MEDRS. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The bare URLs and plaintext citations need to be fixed as a consistent citation style is required for GAC. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you clarify the this requirement? I thought uniform citations were a featured article requirement, not good article requirement. Noleander (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I expanded more on my talkpage but it mostly has to do with MOS compliance. My suggestions here are not absolute. I am absolutely open to negotiations and I’m also willing to put in some time myself fixing up citations or prose stuff as well if that’s something you’d want help with. Ultimately having the bare urls in the refs won’t cause me to fail the article, if that is the only thing wrong. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this image which may be interesting to incorporate into the article if possible:

  

  IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I really don't think that the image in the lead is appropriate for the lead. Infoboxes/leads don't NEED images and per MOS:LEAD As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. Image captions are part of the article text. The image you have in the lead isn't super relevant and I don't think it is representative to HS. This is further expanded on in MOS:LEADIMAGE. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the nomination, so please mark the review as "Failed".

The reason is that many of the changes identified above are not required for GA, yet the reviewer seems to think they are (e.g. four paragraph lead, uniform citation format, etc). If a reviewr has a suggestion that is not necessary to pass the GA review, they should explicitly say that when they first make the suggestion. For example "I'd suggest making all your widgets larger ... if you leave them alone, it won't stop the GA approval, but making them bigger would make the article more attractive". It's okay for a GA reviewer to suggest some optional changes (e.g. some FA-unique criteria) ... but the nominator should not need to guess which are required and which are optional. Noleander (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which changes are not required for GAC? I have explained to you how each one of my proposed changes does. You never had to guess, you could have just asked, but you didn't ask you just requested a new reviewer. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the nominator has expressed they would prefer a different nominator, this article doesn't qualify for a QF so I am going to give a brief review on why this article doesn't meet GAC. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]