Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States edit

Nominator(s): Mark D Worthen PsyD

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have done everything I can think of to improve the article; I requested feedback/suggestions/edits from other editors, but received only one suggestion; I have asked experts in the field for feedback, and I have incorporated their feedback into the article; I think the article is at least close to A-class, and I hope this process will yield feedback and suggestions such that it can become A-class. Please see What is needed to make this an A-class article? on the article's Talk page for specifics. Thank you! Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, Mark, and welcome to Milhist ACR. Without wanting to discourage you, I wonder if you have considered putting this up for a Good Article nomination? Milhist A-class review is geared primarily towards preparing an article for Featured Article review, and as such can be quite intense. This article might be better served going through GA first, although, that is certainly not a requirement for A-class. That said, I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

headings: the capitalization should be sentence case for headings that aren't proper nouns, e.g. "Brief History of U.S. Veterans Disability Benefits" --> "Brief history of U.S. veterans disability benefits", etc.
references: there appear to be some paragraphs that aren't completely cited. For A-class you need at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. For example, the paragraph in the "Selecting a Veterans Service Officer" section;
scope: while I think it is a great resource for veterans (and I am very appreciative that someone has taken the time to produce it -- I have been diagnosed with PTSD from military service myself and I know many others like me), the article IMO goes beyond what I would expect from an encyclopedia and heads into the purview of what seems like "how to guide". For example, this: "For example, if you conduct an "Accreditation Search" on the VA website[39] and search for a "VSO Representative," the search results will list both County Veterans Service Officers and VSO Representatives." I believe that the relevant policy link is: WP:NOTHOWTO;
tone: some of the language used seems like editorialisation, which Wikipedia articles should avoid. For instance, from the article: "And there are other specifications in this set of regulations... that one would never anticipate..."
I also think the annotations beside the links in the External links section may be problematic in this regard. For instance, "Not the most user-friendly online application process in the world, but it won't be a problem for younger vets and others with a fair amount of Internet savvy" and "The best and most comprehensive description..." (an opinion).
Anyway, please do not let these comments discourage you. I really appreciate you taking the time to work on the topic and you have a lot of great content. I hope that others will get involved in this review, so that you can get a broad range of opinion to help make your article better. Good luck and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much AustralianRupert! I appreciate you taking the time to offer your very helpful suggestions. I will make the changes you recommend (they all make sense to me), and then consider resubmitting as a Good Article nomination, as you suggested. :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.