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

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleVeterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2015WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
October 12, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
December 5, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
January 24, 2020Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
May 12, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Peer Review requested

Details at Peer review page for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.

I posted notices on the Talk pages of WP:PSYCH, WP:MED, WP:MILHIST, & WP:USA.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview analysis Jul 2015 to Dec 2019

Pageviews Analysis graph for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States, from Jul 2015 to Dec 2019. Graph created with Pageviews, a Wikimedia Toolforge analysis tool. Wikimedia Toolforge code is licensed GPLv3+, and Wikimedia Toolforge docs are licensed CC BY-SA 3.0. Options selected for this Pageviews analysis: Line graph; logarithmic scale; and Bézier curve.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview graph for this Wikipedia article
Number of page views for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States from Jul 2015 to Dec 2019

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am looking forward to performing a review of this article and glad we were able to chat first. My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edits! Thanks.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

  • I am not understanding the variation of use of italics and quotes.
  • In organization names: National Center for PTSD vs.United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Government Accountability Office (GAO)
  • Terms: traumatic stressor vs. "Dishonorable" vs. post-traumatic stress disorder
  • In the same sentence: "Service-connected" and "connected"
  • Not sure why "denied" is in quotes
  • combination of italics and quotes: "active duty"
  • In back-to-back sentences: "in line of duty" criteria. "In line of duty (with no close quote)

It's my personal approach, not meaning that you need to adopt it, that it is generally best not to emphasize terms with italics or quotes. For this article, there should be a consistent approach.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the WP MOS guideline about this, but this is a helpful link. My feeling is that quotes around words "implies that the author doesn’t agree with the use of the term." WP says the same - but is also not as clear-cut as the link. This link talks about use of italics for words.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. Excessive quote marks and italics is a bad habit of mine that I'm gradually correcting ... a work in progress. ;o) I deleted several of the quote marks and italics (diff). For those that remain, here are explanations and questions:

Lead

"average impairment in earnings capacity" - specific language from the statute, cited in the body of the article.

VA disability benefits for PTSD > History

"parity ratio" - a term with a specific meaning. Would italics be better? Or neither because the endnote explains the term? I'm not sure on this one.

Claims process > In line of duty and exceptions

"In line of duty" is italicized in the original. I did not add a parenthetical to that effect because I thought it was too academic to do so, but I don't mind adding "(italics in original)".

Claims process > Benefits claim procedures

I italicized VA claim exam in both instances for consistency. It is a phrase with a specific meaning. But if you don't think it needs italics, I'm fine with that.

Disability rating > General rating formula for mental disorders

I italicized "General rating formula for mental disorders" and (thereafter) "Rating Formula" because it is the name of a specific (and very important) section of a federal regulation, cited in the first instance.

VBA "raters" who adjudicate claims --> I put "raters" in quote marks because it is a widely used, but informal term.

Disability rating > Individual unemployability

"schedular" in quotes because it is a specifically defined (but rather odd-sounding and often misunderstood) term.

Disability Benefits Questionnaire

"However, it is important to note that the VA discourages their mental health clinicians ..." --> emphasis added because VA makes a clear distinction in this regard for mental health clinicians.

Thanks so much for your work on this. I understand that you want to emphasize some words. I leave it to you whether you would like to do so with quotes or italics, but it would be good to choose one.
I changed VA claim exam to "VA claim exam"; General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders to "General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders"; and Rating Formula to "Rating Formula" in the body of the article and in the footnotes. I left mental health as italicized because it's a quote and it looks cluttered with too many quote marks, plus VA italicizes the term in some of their documentation in this regard.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. And the remaining words will truly have more emphasis now that it's a select group. I really appreciate your work on this!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to add something like "emphasis from the source".–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. That's also what Chicago Manual of Style says, except for legal writing where Bluebook wants the parentheticals.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Post-traumatic stress disorder

  • This section also looks good. I added a few links here, assuming an approach of link in the first instance in the intro and first instance in the body.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatic stressor

  • I was wondering if Traumatic stress should link to traumatic stressor. If it confuses things due to the DSM-5 definition, I understand.
Yes, it has a specific meaning in the regulations [38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3)] that might tend to confuse some folks if we linked to Traumatic stress.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the General comments section regarding use of italics and quotes for words and organizations. (Since it is in the General comments section, I won't repeat this in following sections).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis

Post-traumatic stress disorder section, and its subsections, are  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VA disability benefits for PTSD

  • I made one edit from "will provide" to "provides"
  • I considered adding links to the types of treatment mentioned in this section, but thought that the articles might conflict with VA-approved treatments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a little confusing to some vets, but they can see private clinicians much easier these days, so I think adding wikilinks would be okay.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay,  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

Service-connection

Effectiveness

  • Changed nondisabled to non-disabled for consistency with another use in this section.
  • Are there examples of non-economic losses that warrant compensation - mentioned in the third paragraph?
I rewrote the sentence. Does this make more sense? "In addition to lost income, a Congressionally mandated commission, argued that the VA disability benefits program should compensate veterans for non-economic losses, such as a decline in the veteran's quality of life."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding In a similar vein, a military scholar suggests that current VA disability benefits policy inculcates in veterans a lack of self-efficacy and fosters dependency.[29][30] at the end of the section. Should it be moved before while other researchers take issue with this assertion.[28], rather than follow that sentence?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! I changed the text accordingly. Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This VA disability benefits for PTSD section and its subsections are  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Claims process

Eligibility

Thank you for the wikilinks - I didn't realize we had those articles! I added a reference for the last sentence in the Evidence section.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits claim procedures

  • In this section, please add citations where they are missing.
 Done   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made one edit from "VSR (Veterans Service Representative) to "Veterans Service Representative (VSR)" for its first instance.
  • In the Obtaining assistance section, should "have to" be removed from The veteran does not have to pay a Veterans Service Officer for their services.? It sounds like it's optional.
Green tickY I rewrote the sentence to eliminate the ambiguity.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add a citation for uncited content.
 Done   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federal court review

  • Does The Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988 established the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, an Article I federal tribunal, to review decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals.[47] mean something like
If a claimant questions the decision made by the VBA, they can ask for the case to reviewed by the Board of Veterans Appeals. That decision can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which was established by The Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988. ?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I like that much better. I changed it to: "If a claimant questions the decision made by the VBA, they can ask for the case to reviewed by the Board of Veterans Appeals. That decision can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, an Article I federal tribunal, which was established by The Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988." I added a citation to the first sentence. Also, the "Article I federal tribunal" part is apparently important to include per an attorney with WP:LAW who helped with that section.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-adjudication representation

Green tickY Done.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disability rating

General rating formula for mental disorders

  • Is the rating for disability payments related to the parity ratio?
No.  Question: Do you think I need to add something to that effect? The parity ratio is a term used by economists and was used by the economists who wrote the report referenced in the beginning of the article.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you could, Markworthen, I think that would be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it as an endnote as it seemed wordy to include in the text (diff). See what you think.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add a citation for uncited content.
  • Regarding The General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders has not yet been updated.
  • Please add a citation.
  • And/or state the last date it was revised.
  • Please add {{As of|2020}} or the date of the citation for when it was last revised / published.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY I think I got it all covered. I rewrote the first and fourth paragraphs to improve clarity of expression and to incorporate the needed citations and "as of" text (diff). Lots of nitty gritty details, so please let me know if I missed something. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks great. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claims for an increased disability rating

Individual unemployability

PTSD C&P exam

Concerns about reliability

  • Please add a citation to the end of the bulleted text that starts out "An empirical study..." as well as in the text starting out "Investigative journalists' reports..."–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Ah, I see what you mean. I moved the citation from the end of the sentence to near the beginning for "An empirical study", which makes it much easier to understand which citation refers to which statement (diff). "Investigative journalist's reports" was not clear, I see that now. I struggled some rewriting that sentence. It's okay now, but might be improved (diff). Feel free to tweak!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Benefits Questionnaire

Notes

  • Do you have a citation for note c, second sentence in note d, and note e?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Note c - added citation with page number; note d - deleted the sentence and the note because it's not crucial and I couldn't find a reference (it's out there somewhere ... ;-); note e - added citation. 22:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Comments

  • The article is well-written and is in accordance with MOS guidelines. There are some comments above about minor wording items. (1a, 1b)
  • In most cases, content is properly cited to reliable sources. (2a, 2b, 2c)
  • In the review above, there are some instance of uncited content, which can make it seem to be original research.
  • It looks like citation #18 is really a note.
Not sure. I'm not sure if citation numbers might have changed since you wrote that. Currently #18 is:

An Act To amend and modify the War Risk Insurance Act, ch. 16, 41 Stat. 371, 373 (1919) ("A schedule of ratings of reductions in earning capacity from specific injuries or combinations of injuries of a permanent nature shall be adopted and applied by the bureau. Ratings may be as high as 100 per annum. The ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations and not upon the impairment in earning capacity in each individual case ...").

Checked If that's the one, the citation is to a law passed by Congress in 1919, using Bluebook legal citation format. (Most citation systems, e.g., APA, Chicago, say to use Bluebook for legal cites.) "chap. 16" refers to Chapter 16 of the (lengthy) Act. "41 Stat. 371" is the reference for the bill that passed, 373 is the page where the quote is found.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some use of primary sources, which is needed in some cases and there are a number of secondary sources.
  • Please add citation information for citation #34.
Green tickY Oh my, that was a confusing way to cite that. I changed it to conform with Bluebook legal citation, which is much simpler.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyvio detector has a high-ish percentage. This is due to quotations, names of organizations (particularly The Department of Veterans Affairs), terms, and short phrases that can only be worded a limited number of ways. (2d)
  • It covers the major aspects, without going into unnecessary detail. (3a, 3b)
  • The article is neutral and stable. (4, 5)
  • All of the images are relevant and are tagged with licenses. I am wondering, though, if book covers from recent books can be licensed just by a user taking a picture or downloading an image of it. (6a, 6b)
Please see this on Commons. Unless you know of a reason for an exception, I don't think the books covers should be used. It looks like a problem.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I have uploaded images of book covers to Wikipedia under non-free fair use rationale - but those images could only be used within the article specifically about the book and had to have reduced size.)
Green tickYGood point. I took out the DSM-5 cover. The Code of Federal Regulations book cover is a U.S. government work, so in the public domain.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the article! It looks good, just some minor items to work through. Please let me know if you have any questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I greatly appreciate your nicely detailed review. Correcting or modifying the issues you identified has made this a better article. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Love the flower, thanks! It's my pleasure. I am sorry that it was cumbersome to get through - I know the feeling - but you did a great job.
Thanks! I told a friend that you are "like a really good journal editor—it's hard work attending to all the detailed changes but it's very much worth it in the end. It's a much better article now." :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Markworthen, There are a couple places with missing citations, if you take a look at the General rating formula for mental disorders section, first paragraph and Concerns about reliability, 3d bullet. And, then we are done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added one citation, Markworthen. For the second needed citation, I looked through the source for "A survey of C&P psychologists revealed that only 15% followed VA's own guidance regarding best practices[84]" and I couldn't verify this information and the quote in the citation doesn't mention the 15% statistic. So, I wasn't able to add a citation where missing + this citation failed verification. Can you help solve this riddle?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my that was an awkward sentence. I rewrote it and added a couple of quotes to references to support statements in the body of the article (diff). See what you think.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks, Markworthen! Looks good. The article passes GA. Yeah!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Woo hoo! Thank you for all your hard work on improving this article! All the very best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, thank you for all your hard work!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebook citation style for legal sources

I added a note to editors at the top of the article:

For citations to court cases, statutes, federal regulations, and other traditionally "legal" sources, this article uses Bluebook legal citation style, albeit without small caps (see MOS:SMALLCAPS).

You can purchase Bluebook in an online version ($39/one year; $59/two years, or $79/three years) or as a spiralbound print book ($45), or see if your local library has a copy. (You can purchase the print book from other outlets - the link here goes to the publisher's order page.) You might also wish to consult online guides that provide basic Bluebook citation formats, tutorials, and related information.

  • Georgetown Law Library, Bluebook Guide - This guide has a lot of useful information, but you will need to carefully review the start page, e.g., the left navigation menu, and subsequent links within pages to take full advantage of the guide.
See also Georgetown Law » The Writing Center » Guides and Handouts for a wealth of information.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Veterans_benefits_for_post-traumatic_stress_disorder_in_the_United_States"