The purpose of this page is to provide the Good Article reviewer(s) with some background on the article I recently nominated for GA designation, Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.
I humbly ask you (the reviewer) to note or review the following:
Expert reviewers (2015) edit
- During the first half of 2015, I asked some experts to review the article and offer suggestions. I received very helpful advice from a former VA medical center chief of mental health services; other C&P psychologists; senior Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) staff, e.g., 'Raters' (Rating Veterans Service Representatives), quality review specialists, and Decision Review Officers; leading social science researchers in the area (who do not work for VA); the chief Legal & Policy Analyst for the VBA; and the head of Policy & Legal Analysis for the Board of Veterans Appeals. I incorporated their suggested edits into the article.
Background information (2015, although mostly still relevant) edit
- Prior to nominating the article for A-class status (see below), I created a section on the article's talk page, What is needed to make this an A-class article?, in which I provide a fair amount of background information, including a brief description of my background, advice I sought from experts, my personal disclosures, and questions/concerns I had about the article at the time.
WP:MILHIST feedback/suggestions (2015) edit
- In July 2015 I nominated the article for A-class designation from WikiProject Military History. I learned that a nomination for Good Article status would be more appropriate. In addition, AustralianRupert kindly offered several very helpful suggestions that I incorporated into the article.
Good Article review (2015) edit
- I subsequently nominated the article for Good Article status. The article did not make it, but for good reasons.
- The 2015 Good Article review included some astute comments and suggestions, which I now regard as being spot on, although at the time I'm embarrassed to say I was a bit sensitive about the "rejection".
Areas of concentration: 2016–2020 edit
- Over the past five years, I and several other editors have contributed to the article. One of my primary goals has been to remove "advice-giving" or manual-like aspects of the article that did not conform to WP:NOTGUIDE, as reviewers had noted. I also concentrated on removing references that probably fell under the "original research" or not-quite-reliable-sources categories. I also tried to make the article more concise (as did other editors).
Peer Review (2019) edit
- I requested a Peer Review in October 2019. I posted a notice about the peer review request on the talk pages of the article's interested WikiProjects.
Guild of Copy Editors Review (2020) edit
- I requested a Guild of Copy Editors review of the article. Twofingered Typist graciously agreed and copy edited the article on January 24, 2020.
Dear Reviewer edit
Dear Reviewer - If you find problems that disqualify the article from Good Article status—but you believe the article is close to meeting the Good Article criteria—would you be so kind as to put the Good Article review on "Hold" so that I (and other editors) can address the problems you have identified? Thank you so much! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)