Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Medicine/Checklist

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Article reviewed:_________________________________________________

Review date: _____ / _____ / _____

If you were a first time reader, would reading this article answer your questions about this topic? Yes-Favorable / No-Negative

Comments:

.

Directions for Scoring: N/A, Yes, No are the possible responses. You should circle your answer depending upon whether or not you found one instance or not. You should stop searching through the article after having found at least one instance for each question. Responses that circle an underscore indicate non-compliance to our guidelines and count as one. The score for each section is, thus, the sum of all your responses that indicate non-compliance to our guidelines. The total score is the sum of all the individual sections added together.

Scored ....... on the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) Guidelines

SQG #1-No advocacy of any kind is permitted.

SQG #2-Points of view can only be presented as points of view.

SQG #3-Proponent's and opponent's viewpoints are accurately presented without controversy and are to the point.

(SQG#1)Does the article promote PRO/CON propaganda or advocacy of any kind?... N/A, Yes, No
- Editorializing of any kind.
- Advocacy of any kind.
- Judgement of any kind.
(SQG#2)Are the expressed PRO/CON viewpoints presented as conclusions rather than just as one possible point of view?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#2)Does the text and manner of writing insinuate that the PRO/CON viewpoint is more correct than another?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#01)Are the talk pages being used for partisan PRO/CON wranglings that have nothing to do with improving the article?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#3)Were the CAM views, no matter how bizarre or repugnant, accurately provided for, without any hint of advocacy?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#3)Were the CON views accurately provided for, without any hint of advocacy?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#3)Are criticisms properly directed at the subject of the article?... N/A, Yes, No A no means that the criticisms are off-topic.

Scored ....... on the Attribute Guidelines

SQG #4-To attribute means to footnote an assertion.

SQG #5-A footnote may reference a book, newspaper or magazine article, online web site, or a citation to a published research paper.

SQG #6-Sources of information cited must be reliable and not idiosyncratic.

(SQG#5)Is there a reference section at the bottom of the article?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#4)Have all the major points of controversy made in this article been supported with footnotes to references?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#6)Do the referenced web sites reference their own assertions?... N/A, Yes, No A no means that the referenced website is simply passing along Internet gossip that has never been supported with valid references.
(SQG#6)Do all references, referenced actually apply to the subject referenced?... N/A, Yes, No In other words, a no means that the reference actually does not support what it is claimed to support.

Scored ....... on the Controversial Topic Guidelines

SQG #7-Introductory paragraphs are presented without controversy and are to the point.

SQG #8-Avoid a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.

SQG #9-The Information provided must be balanced.

SQG #10-Controversial assertions must be footnoted to sources of information.

(SQG#7)Are the introductory paragraphs completely neutral?
- Or, are the paragraphs before the first section heading, straight to the point?... N/A, Yes, No A no means that they contain a hint of controversy.
  - Editorializing of any kind.
  - Advocacy of any kind.
  - Judgement of any kind.
  - No weaselspeak (an anonymous attribution) of any kind.
  - Just a straight to the point definition of the topic of the article.
(SQG#8)Are debates provided in bulleted lists?... N/A, Yes, No A no means that the debates are part of the narrative.
(SQG#9)Have the method(s) of treatment been identified?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#9)Have the therapeutic effect(s) of the CAM treatments been identified?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#9)Have the medical conditions reported to be effectively treated by these CAM treatments been identified?... N/A, Yes, No
SQG#9)Have the physical modes of action that could plausibly account for the therapeutic effects of these CAM treatments been identified?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#10)Did you spot at least 3 instances of the article using weaselspeak (an anonymous attribution)?... N/A, Yes, No

Scored ....... on the Health & Medical Topic Guidelines

SQG #11-Complementary treatments are recommended.

SQG #12-Footnotes are required for health claims of any type.

(SQG#11)Is it explained within the article that the alternative treatment information provided is complementary?... N/A, Yes, No
(SQG#12)Are the health claims made supported with footnotes?... N/A, Yes, No