Talk:Prison healthcare in Australia/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) 06:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

the actual number of mental health disorders is estimated to be 74% - 74% is a rate of occurrence, not a number.

Reworded.

Suggest wikilinking (Australian) Federal Government.

Good suggestion. Done.

I have made a few minor copy-edits.

Thanks, I apprecaited that. I'm kind of embarrassed by how many times I said "also" haha.

The Coronial Inquest into several deaths in custody have noted the lack of Item 715 in prison, and have called for the trial of Medicare services in prisons.[21][23] - this is probably just on the right side of synthesis. In general it is not safe to give multiple examples and to infer a rule, but all that is said here is that calls sometimes occur.

Yeah that's a good point, thanks. Ironically I could cite this to one of the sources I wrote as I inferred a rule between these two things, but I've been trying to cut back on citing myself here.

many health services cannot be provided ..., or because there is no non-Medicare equivalent service available.[21][22] - this probably does count as synthesis, as a rule is being inferred from two instances. The elided part of the sentence cites [1][3][20] which are much more suitable (reliable secondary) sources for this sort of inference.

Good point. I've reworded this accordingly.

a paradoxical situation - not exactly a paradox, rather a (Catch-22 style) trap. I don't think we can mention the novel unless a source does so for us, but "procedural trap" would do the job here.

Good suggestion. Thanks.

Images

None. The article would benefit from illustration, for example of a prison healthcare facility.

It's extremely difficult to take get permission to take photos within prisons, and even rarer to be able to release them into the public domain. A friend of mine did her PhD on prisons in Australia and while she did get permission to go into prisons and take photos, she had to sign a contract saying the photos she took would not be used in any way outside her PhD. Not surprisingly, I can't find anything on Commons. I did find this image in the Queensland State Archives Flickr account: [1]. Unfortunately, the image has no specific description, and instead includes the same generic description given to all the photos take at Boggo Road Gaol. Now, this very much looks like a medical room to me, however, do you think it would be original research to call it 'A medical room at Boggo Road Gaol, c. 1988'? Alternative captions welcome.

That image and caption would be just fine if the image is licensed suitably. It appears to be copyrighted so I assume you want to put it on Wikipedia not Commons and to create a non-free fair use rationale (NFUR) for it (unless state images are, like those in the USA, actually Public Domain, in which case Commons is the target and the license will be a special Aus Gov one): I think that would be well justified here. I can help with the NFUR - basically you have to argue that the image is necessary in the article.)

Alternatively, I did organise Australia's first ever conference on the need for Medicare in prisons back in 2022. Example images from that conference can be found here: [2]. I would happily release one of the many images I took at that conference to Commons, but I'm hesitant to do that in case it's considered a potential COI as well. What do you suggest out of these two options? Or do you have other ideas?

It wouldn't be COI. The medical room image is clearly more useful to the article, and the images aren't in any way alternatives to each other. If you can release a conference image labelling the people and their stakeholder roles that would be great. The release has to be by the photographer (the copyright owner); either they upload the image or an OTRS ticket is needed to certify the release. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't really think about who took the actual conference photos which were given to me. This may present a problem as it would take me some time to get in contact with that person. I do agree the medical room image is considerably more useful. Interestingly, according to the image's Queensland Archives catalogue entry you listed above, the image is is copyrighted. However, the image licensing for the photo on Flickr in the 'Additional info' section is given as CC BY-NC 2.0. Could I upload it to Commons with that licensing? If not, your offer of help with NFUR is greatly appreciated and I would like to take you up on that. If we go with NFUR, what should the first step be from here? Damien Linnane (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CC-by-NC = Non-Commercial only, which is not sufficient for Commons (must be CC-by-SA or PD). I'll have a go at doing the NFUR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded, NFUR created, inserted into article. Feel free to tweak the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Ref [3], used 12 times in the article, and ref [7], used 3 times, reveal a Conflict of Interest. I suggest that you place a declaration of CoI on the article's talk page, or if you prefer on your user page.

I was wondering about this. I've never cited myself significantly on a Wikipedia article before. The main reason I'm citing myself is because I know very well what's in the articles I wrote (why go looking for someone else saying the same thing when I don't have to and all that). I don't stand to benefit financially in any way from this; adding these sources to Wikipedia doesn't increase my Citation impact. I've actually just found WP:SELFCITE for the first time now. I don't think what you're suggesting is a bad idea at all, but I note declaring a COI when citing yourself isn't mentioned there. Are you suggesting I declare a conflict of interest just as a sign of good faith, or because there's an actual precedent somewhere to do that here? Incidentally I'm going to try and trim down the number of citations to myself in any case.

The lowest-key action is probably to put a small good-faith declaration somewhere. You can certainly say that you are under no organisational or financial pressure to edit.

Done. I've also replaced three instances of citing myself with alternative sources. I completely encourage anyone to replace sources I've written with sources of the same or higher quality written by others, if they back up the same statements.

All the sources are relevant and reliable.

[8] Inside Story does mention bias, but the explicit example there is about doing the survey on the day people are released; the following sentence mentions the comparison of care inside and outside, without necessarily saying that's biased.

Oh, that's a good point! I've reworded it accordingly.

Spot-checks [9], [17], [23], [37], [40] verify claims made using these sources.

Summary

This is a well-written and very thoroughly researched article based on expert knowledge of the subject. That leaves very little that needs attention, and I'm sure the small matters I've noted will be fixed easily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review Chiswick Chap. When you get a chance, can you take a look at my responses, particularly the one in relation to images? Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all done here. It's a GA, good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.