Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asperger's syndrome
This is a very well written and informative article. Perl 15:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fredrik 15:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Support, I enjoyed reading this, it flowed very naturally. fabiform | talk 23:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Acegikmo1 07:16, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Schnee 09:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Object, for now. Most of the article seems excellent, but the list of "possible people with Aspergers" is unsourced (is it just by random Wikipedians?) and it's hard to evaluate its basis and reliability. Some people on the list (or their descendants) may furthermore be offended by their thinly-justified inclusion on it. Steven G. Johnson 19:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would support if we removed the list? I agree with yu about the list being unsourced and I think it should probably be shortened or removed. Perl 20:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I would support if the list were removed, or shortened to those people for whom an explicit citation to a reputable source could be given. Steven G. Johnson
- I changed the section and added a little context. See if it looks right now. Perl 01:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've edited the article a little further to make it clear that such "biographical" diagnoses remain controversial, and added a reference. I withdraw my objection, and am now neutral. Steven G. Johnson 03:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I changed the section and added a little context. See if it looks right now. Perl 01:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I would support if the list were removed, or shortened to those people for whom an explicit citation to a reputable source could be given. Steven G. Johnson
- Perhaps you would support if we removed the list? I agree with yu about the list being unsourced and I think it should probably be shortened or removed. Perl 20:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Best-written article I've seen recently, one of the few that might IMHO actually qualify as "brilliant prose," not just a good encyclopedia article. Maybe not quite up to John McPhee but "not quite as good as John McPhee" is pretty high praise. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'm just curious: Do you mean the writings of John McPhee or the article John McPhee (or am I just missing something)? Acegikmo1
- Oh, I meant the writings of John McPhee who is in my arrogant opinion one of the best nonfiction writers. In the world. Ever. Never even thought that someone might think that I was referring to the stubby and mediocre Wikipedia article. on him. McPhee is delightful; I can pick up a John McPhee book on some subject that doesn't interest you at all and within one page I get hooked and read it nonstop to the end. The Curve of Binding Energy is really good, BTW... Dpbsmith 13:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'm surprised... the prose puts me off, and is one of my main reasons for holding off on supporting featured status. +sj+ 22:13, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
- I'm just curious: Do you mean the writings of John McPhee or the article John McPhee (or am I just missing something)? Acegikmo1
- Support with one caveat. Is there a way to break up the characteristics section into two sections? I find myself swimming in it a bit, though the writing itself is good. If there's no way to break it up, I support anyway, but I would love it if the section could be partitioned somehow. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Gandalf61 10:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, for its interest and quality of writing. Pfortuny 08:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly support. Personally, I have a very strong interest in this issue; although I've never been officially diagnosed, I've become convinced that I'm an "Asperger" myself. But even if I didn't have a personal interest in the content, I'd still support. Dale Arnett 15:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Object. There's a fantastic article waiting to be made out of autism and Asperger's syndrome, but neither one is quite there yet. Arguing against featured art status: inconstant (and incomplete) wikification, colloquial non-encyclopedic language, and lacking historical context (how has the meaning of these notions/terms/syndromes changed over the past 100 years?). The article could be much improved by someone with a high-level view of the entire field of related mental states and conditions (and with a clinical detachment from AS itself). +sj+ 22:05, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
- Also, more detail is needed before this should be featured; among other things, AS should be distinguished from other types of 'high-functioning' autism, and definitional issues (which older classifications/diagnoses can be classified as AS, now that [for the past 20 years] it exists as a separate classification?).
- Support. I have been diagnosed with it, and I find that this article, aside from being extremely well-written and organized, describes myself better than I could ever hope to on my own power. Gus 00:33, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)