Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to containing significant uncited material, this 2008 listing contains few sources from the decade and a half since its promotion; I thus believe that it does not meet GA criterion 2b) or the standards of WP:MEDRS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to de-listing. I think if this was the state of the article when I assessed it I should not have promoted it. The uncited information is the most concerning, but also the writing is quite jargony in places. Also, (this is minor but) I think the images of art with the captions claiming these could be a representation of a disordered thought process are a stretch. There are descriptions of visual signs such as unusual clothing that could be much better examples for images. I'm not sure I agree that the sources being old is a problem for most of the article--if it's a widely used test that's been the gold standard for years you might not expect much to change about it--but we'd at least want to check that that's the case and that it's not changed importantly. delldot ∇. 14:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]