The table below represents my individual assessment of the article against the Good article criteria. However, I requested a community reassessment given the lack of consensus and high level of disagreement on the article's talk page. Thus, the assessment below represents only one person's opinion; it is neither the complete nor the final good article reassessment. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: delisted, has active cleanup banner (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Recent contentious editing has degraded the quality of the prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is too long, containing text better suited for the article body.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Whether or not a reference constitutes a reliable source per WP:MEDRS has been hotly debated. In my estimation, some of the references do not comply with both standard and medical reliable sources criteria, e.g., theoretical articles and primary source citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There appears to be instances of WP:SYNTH.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a major problem but excess detail occurs in some places.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Some agendas are being pushed, IMHO of course.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Frequent back-and-forth edits with tendentious arguments common on the talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Regrettably, the article no longer meets GA criteria.

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]