Talk:Suicide/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've now read through this nomination quite quickly, but I've not checked any citations nor copyright status of images. However, this article has the "look and feel" of a GA, so I would anticipate that it should gain GA-status by the end of this review.

I fixed a few "trivial problems" whilst reading through it rather than list them here to be fixed by someone else.

I'm now going to go through the article in more depth, starting at the Definitions sections and finishing with the WP:Lead. This is likely to take another day or so and in this part of the review I will mostly be commenting on "problems", if any as I find them. Pyrotec (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions -

I know that Canada is bilingual, so this is more of a "note" than an "action": ref 8 is referenced in French, but the Amazon.ca link goes to the English-language version of what I assume is the same text; and the ISBN (given as an 978-No.-code) appears to be for the English not the French version. No problems in regard of the definition being verifiable, just the fine detail of the citation.
Nothing else, needs bringing up here.

Yes the ref template gave this. Have substituted English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Done Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risk factors -

In the Mental disorders subsection, I'm happy with "While acts of self-harm are not seen as suicide attempts, the presence of self-injurious behavior is related to increased suicide risk.[25]", but I do have a comment/question. In Definitions section it states "Attempted suicide or non fatal suicidal behavior is self injury with the desire to end one's life that does not result in death.[8]", again its a verifiable statement, so these two are statements are not inconsistent. My question concerns Attempted suicide, that might have been intended as a "cry for help", and which goes wrong and death does occur: is there information in the literature on Attempted suicides that go too far and should it be in this article?

Some people cut themselves not in an attempt to end there life but as an attempt to deal with psychological distress. This is known as self harm. If someone cuts themselves in an attempt to end their life this is a suicide attempt. The intent behind the act is key and thus the difference is subtle.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Done Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section appears to be compliant.

Note: File:Suicidecases.png had a {{Uncategorized}} flag so I added the category Category:Suicide to it. Change it if you wish. Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Methods -

This is a short section with one large paragraph on methods and a much shorter one on the three "most popular" methods used in the USA. In its current form it is compliant, but I believe that some expansion of the second paragraph would improve the article. For instance, ref 82 (WHO: Suicide prevention (SUPRE)) describes Europe and North America as having similar major risk factors, i.e. "Mental disorders (particularly depression and alcohol use disorders) are a major risk factor for suicide", whereas "in Asian countries impulsiveness plays an important role". So, the addition of information, if it exists in print, for "most popular" methods used in Asian countries could provide a useful addition.

Added some more country specific data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Done Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology -

This section appears to be compliant.

Prevention -

This section appears to be compliant.

Epidemiology -
- untitled first subsection.

This subsection referenced and therefore verifiable, but I found some of the date confusing and/or contra-intuitive. So, I'd ask for some clarification. For instance: Approximately 0.5% to 1.4% of people end their life by suicide.[2][13], to me that seems to suggest a mortality rate of 500 to 1,400 per 100,000, but the mortality rates are suicide is the tenth leading cause of death[1] with about 800,000 to one million people dying annually, giving a mortality rate of 11.6 per 100,000 persons per year.[2]. So mortality rate is about 0.011 per cent . The second paragraph gives the answer, so I "corrected" the first paragraph.

You need to take into account the number of years people live. So if the average life expectancy is 65 years that would be 65 * 11.6 per 100,000 per years or 754 per 100,000 lives or 0.75%. I prefer the previous wording. In comparison about 30% of people die from cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifing that. I'd obviously missed the need to consider "whole-life" risk, but interestingly its a linear function so at (say) 80 I'm twice as likely to kill myself as would have done at 40 and four times as likely as I would have done at 20. However, that does not seem to be the whole story. But, I'm not going pursue this any further.

Done Pyrotec (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional to other causes of death the risk of death in the 20/30 from suicide is higher than in the 80s. Even though the absolute risk is greater in the 80s. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way many thanks for the review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's an interesting article. Suicide as "a solution" and/or an academic topic is something of a new avenue for me. I'm quite enjoying reviewing it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Gender & Age -

These two subsection are verifiable against reliable sources, so I'm happy in that respect. However, I did come across this paper from the Samaritans writing that men in mid-life, particularly those in a "lower socio-economic position" have the highest risk. Generally, the article and the paper are in good agreement, but this could be a point of departure and it could be relevant with to the economic situation in Europe and possible the USA after the "sub-prime crisis".
Overall, these two subsections are compliant.

Yes a book on suicide in Japan states that economic problems are the second most common reason expressed in that location for suicide. This is a very good global overview by age and area of the world[1]. When one looks at risk one must determine if they are talking about absolute risk or relative risk. Additionally we know that those who have drug problems (including ETOH) and mental illness also have low socio economic positions. We do know that economics in and of itself though has an effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way we already state "in many countries the rate of suicide is highest in the middle ages" based on a a2012 Lancet paper. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're are right it does: I used the browser's "find" facility and its in the first line in the Age Subsection. Sorry I didn't "see it" and I thought that I'd read every word at least once.

Done Pyrotec (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History -

This section is compliant.

Social and culture & Other species -

These two sections are compliant.

Notable cases -

This section is compliant.

WP:Lead -

This is quite a comprehensive article and the WP:Lead makes a good effort to both introduce the subject of the article and to summarise the main points (as per WP:Lead). At four paragraphs in length, it's complaint in respect of the number of paragraphs and there don't appear to be any major/significant topics excluded. I'm going to accept the Lead as it is and award GA-status. I believe that the article has the potential of making WP:FAC, but for that I suspect that the lead would need some "fleshing out". Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting, informative and comprehensive article. I learnt a lot about this topic as a result of reading through it several times during this review.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
This article is well referenced with WP:RS.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Yes, but two images File:A Hindoo Widow Burning Herself with the Corpse of her Husband.jpg and File:The way out.jpg have {{PD-Art}} "template without parameter" flags.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. I see from the {{articlehistory}} that back in May 2005 this article was an unsuccessful WP:FAC candidate. I believe that the current version of the article could make FA, but to get a wider-view WP:PR might be the next step. Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I worked on this push to WP:GA as a tribute to Aaron Swartz who unfortunately ended his life in this manner. [2] A FA push would be excellent but these are typically beyond me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]