Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 10:15, 24 June 2007.

Schizophrenia[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Brilliant prose promotion (promoted version); messages left at Medicine and Psychology.

I'm nominating this article for Featured Article review because;

  1. It fails 1a, having many stubby paragraphs.
  2. It fails WP:SUMMARY.
  3. It has an external link farm.
  4. The citation style needs consistency.

All this needs addressing for the article to be brought up to current standard. LuciferMorgan 19:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the article certainly needs a bit of a spring copy-edit, but I would argue against point 1 above, as the many 'stubby paragraphs' as you call them, actually seem to be an appropriate level of depth for a main article that attempts to cover a massive amount of scientific literature, in line with FA criteria 4.
I need to look at WP:SUMMARY in more detail, but you could be right here. The external links certainly need cleaning up, but it seems the citation style is pretty consistent throughout the whole article. Could you clarify this a little?
Thanks! - Vaughan 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubby paragraphs don't need expansion, but need merging. WP:SUMMARY is in line with criterion 4. LuciferMorgan 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After two and a half hours of work, I'm about two-thirds through cleaning up the references. (The very strange reference formatting used was chunking up the article size; I've already shaved 7KB by just employing the PMID template, which strangely, wasn't used.) The good news is that virtually all the sources are journal-published medical literature. The bad news is there is a very long list of issues needed to bring this article to standard, which I'll type up after I finish the ref cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are cleaned up now; that took many hours and shaved about 10KB from the article. I only had to delete one self-published source. The sources that are there are generally very good and the citation level in the article is commendable, reflecting a lot of hard work, although there are still major problems with the article citations. Also, book sources are still lacking page numbers. Outriggr also eliminated some of the trivia in popular culture. It will take me some time to type up the very long list of issues that need to be addressed in this article, but work should start quickly on pruning the outrageous External link farm per WP:EL and WP:NOT. Most of the links can be eliminated by simply linking to DMOZ (see Tourette syndrome for an example). It will take a sustained, concerted effort to bring this article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work thus far; shame I cannot really help, as medical related topics aren't my area. LuciferMorgan 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Deficit Syndrome" subsection needs citations. LuciferMorgan 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not now; I moved it to the talk page. Undue weight, uncited, perhaps if someone wants to cite it, it could have its own article and be linked to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To do

I've cleaned up the TOC to conform with WP:MEDMOS. All of the info/recommended sections were there, but just not well organized and divided into stubby sections. The stubbiness should now be eliminated, with a cleaner TOC, reflecting sections headings as suggested at MEDMOS. Here is the former TOC. Some tweaking of the text may be needed now to reflect the new organization.

The "Overview" section is an expanded lead; it is unencyclopedic, and should be eliminated, with the lead rewritten to conform to WP:LEAD.

I eliminated this section, moving to text to appropriate sections or daughter articles, which will need to be reviewed by the main editors (some of these sections are now repetitious). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still MASSIVE amounts of work to be done, but this should put a basis structure in place for citing, cleaning up and copyediting the article. (Since this article was a "brilliant prose" promotion, and it has grown considerably since promotion, most of the text has never been subjected to a review under current standards.) In terms of comprehensive, I think the only info missing now per MEDMOS is Screening/prevention.

I've also added the DMOZ links to External links, and did some initial pruning per WP:EL,WP:NOT and WP:MEDMOS, but deeper pruning is still needed.

Further reading also needs cleanup to a standard citation format.

Cleaned up, but the final listing (Wiencke, Markus) needs a language icon, and I couldn't find this book listed in any ISBN finder or anywhere else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, I still need to type up the very long list of issues remaining, not the least of which are very serious copyedit and citation needs. The article is 60KB; unnecessarily too long. The Causes section, as but one example, is a clear candidate for Summary style (especially since there are some undue weight issues there). For an example of summary style in a similar article, please see Tourette syndrome. Treatment should also be summarized. Using Summary Style on these two sections should 1) bring the size into a range that conforms with WP:LENGTH, 2) eliminate some of the copyedit needs, 3) eliminate some of the undue weight issues, and 4) reduce some of the citation needs in the main article. In other words, a lot of the marginal text could be cut from the main article, and included in the summary article.

I created Causes of schizophrenia and cut text to that article, which removed a lot of uncited text and has brought the readable prose size down to a manageable 45KB. Regular editors will probably want to review and re-do what I left summarized in the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large chunks of the article remain uncited, and I am concerned about the lack of the use of good, recent reviews, particularly with respect to undue weight. You can find a study on PubMed that says just about anything; what is needed is a good recent review to put it all in place and context, with due weight. As an example, note that Tourette syndrome uses at least half a dozen recent comprehensive peer-reviewed reviews, in addition to the PMID citations. Undue weight is a concern in this article. Wiki doesn't need to cite everything ever printed about Schizophrenia; it needs to provide a current, encyclopedic overview.

Please be aware that this article is likely to be long as it needs to adequately reflect what is known about the disorder. Tourette's is not a good comparison. There are just over 3,000 scientific article on Tourette's on PubMed, while there are nearly 75,000 on schizophrenia. To fully cover the main areas, even in outline with links to main articles, the schizophrenia entry is likely to be larger than most. I'm a bit concerned that an over-strict application of templates will 'tick boxes' at the expense of scientifically rigorous main article. - Vaughan 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (re the comparison and the amount of research on the two topics); nonetheless, summarizing Causes and Treatment is needed and would be appropriate here, and would fully solve the size issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among the long list of copyedit needs I still have to type up is the frequent use of the word "recent" to describe studies; this terminology becomes outdated. What was "recent" when the text was written may not stay recent; but the copyedit needs are extensive and will require a sustained effort, after parts of the article have been removed to daughter articles per summary style, and after uncited text is removed or cited.

The Medication section needs serious expansion; also, see the suggestions per Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) at Tourette syndrome with respect to how to deal with generic and trade names.

The article needs images. Since it will be hard to find them, you may have to resort to what we did at Tourette syndrome, using medications and perhaps Eugen Bleuler. You might also ping TimVickers (talk · contribs) and Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) for some ideas.

Outriggr has added and Quadzilla99 fixed images — much better now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External jumps need to be cleaned up.

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GTL and WP:MEDMOS; See also needs to be pruned. Articles should be linked into the text where possible, and articles that are already linked in the text need not be included in See also.

I cleaned up See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A large effort at improving the wikilinking will be needed after all else is completed.

I'm not convinced that all of the studies cited in the "Violence" section actually pertain specifically to Schizophrenia. That's a start; there's much more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting list of copyedit needs, once article is summarized and fully cited, with uncited text removed (Diagnostic issues and controversies is one of several undercited sections):

  • Remove references to "currently" or "recently" and make the text more enduring.
  • I've found numerous instances of missing punctuation at ends of sentences — review.
  • Decide on British or American spelling and check throughout (... which was statistically related to the relatively poor and violent neighbourhoods in which they resided and to substance misuse... )
  • I saw many versions of "it should be noted that", or "it is worth noting that", or "it should be mentioned" — things like that. Unencyclopedic, and we shouldn't tell our readers what to note.
  • A lot of redundancy checking and unnecessary prose can be eliminated, per User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Some random examples:
    • Prognosis also depends on some other factors.
    • The same study also found that prevalence may vary greatly from country to country, despite the received wisdom that schizophrenia occurs at the same rate throughout the world. It is worth noting however, that this may be in part due to differences in the way schizophrenia is diagnosed. (received wisdom? worth noting ... )
    • In the western world, schizophrenia is typically diagnosed in late adolescence or early adulthood. In the western world, it is found approximately equally in men and women, though the onset tends to be later in women, who also tend to have a better course and outcome. (In the western world... in the western world).
    • Prognosis for any particular individual affected by schizophrenia is particularly hard to judge as treatment and access to treatment is continually changing, as new methods become available and medical recommendations change. (as ... as ... clauses)
    • Long-term inpatient stays are now less common due to deinstitutionalization, although can still occur. (awkward)
    • (Just saw two more missing full stop) A similar approach known as cognitive enhancement therapy, which focuses on social cognition as well as neurocognition, has shown efficacy[83] ... and ... There have also been advances in social skills training[81]
    • (An example of a redundant "currently") Currently, there is growing evidence of the crucial role of autoimmunity in the etiology and pathogenesis of schizophrenia.

A note, because I just saw this ... why is Abilify the only specific medication mentioned in Medication, and there is no mention of metabolic side effects with the neuroleptics. If Treatment is summarized to a daughter article, a more comprehensive daughter article can be written, without adding to the length of the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment with antipsychotics definitely needs a daughter article. Maybe even can link directly to that onecheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a general treatment daughter article, which could be expanded and summarized back to the main article, Treatment of schizophrenia. 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question? Equal incidence in males and females? Can't find that covered in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found, but not cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited now. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most urgent need is to finish citing the article (it is seriously undercited), and trim the lengthy sections with summary style, so the remaining text can be copyedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move most of diagnostic controversies to a subsidiary page.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(groan)....what do we call the subsidiary page.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...actually I mused on a page called Controversies in Schizophrenia and all this plus some of the relevant antipsychiatry stuff could be put in I guess, but I suspect it may be seen as POV..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(as if the article isn't long enough) - a critical bit is something on prodrome to go in beginning of Clinical Features/Symptoms and signs section..man this is giving me a headache...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to ya'll to figure out the controversial title, but if you summarize Treatment and Alternative approaches, there will be no length problem. (I'm still concerened that the regular editors of this article haven't weighed in.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that at least one former member maybe a little busy with other matters but hopefully someone will turn up cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I am keeping tabs on things, but unfortunately, this has come at rather an inconvenient time and I'm not going to have huge amounts of free time until mid-June. As a suggestion though, I'd be tempted to keep as much of the diagnostic controversies in the main article as possible as this is one of the biggest debates. - Vaughan 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to cite it then. I still believe that Treatment is the best candidate for summary, and if it's done, length should not be an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions PMID 4683124 "On being sane in insane places", but makes no mention at all of the fourteen articles listed in PubMed discussing this article, many as rebuttals or describing it as pseudoscience. Is this section NPOV and/or giving undue weight to the idea that Schizophrenia isn't a reliable diagnosis? At a minimum, if this article is mentioned, the rebuttals should be mentioned. It looks like controversies are given undue weight throughout the article, while mainstream literature may not yet be fully represented in the article. Certainly, Treatment and Diagnosis aren't covered as well as controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us unfamiliar with the terminology, linking Dysphoria under Signs and symptoms would be appreciated. Thanks. Zealorb 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on article status 30 May 2007[edit]

I'd say the article is about 75% through a review of content; this comprises removing alot of non-core material, controversies and some theories on causes that may have more or less evidence but contribute little to everyday clinical practice. As I've gone through I've copyedited a fair bit but a major run through clearly has to wait until the content is settled. Alot of the citing has been done.

It still needs some more core content on management plus adding some references to the material I added, then LEAD tweaking and copyedit.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it in review a little longer. Marskell 10:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Apart from a table of progonstic features, I'm now satisfied the content is more or less right, though I haven't heard from Vaughan yet. New sections need some refs, which is no biggie. Next is copyedit and lead. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The article has improved remarkably, and I'm confident it will emerge with featured status retained because of the concerted effort being made. However, there's still a bit of work to be done. Some things to consider:
    • A review of WP:MEDMOS list of sections: Prevention or Screening haven't been addressed, and Accounts in literature could be changed to Cultural references, to conform with MEDMOS.
      • Done the latter. The former is tricky as it is a very vexed subject in schizophrenia and currently there is only a bit on 'Early Psychosis which we could expand.
    • Alternative approaches still needs work, in terms of consistency in referencing style and potential issues of undue weight (for example, one author is referenced three times on Coeliac disease and schizophrenia, the papers are from the 70s, and one could question how relevant this work is today. (But the referencing is beautiful.)
    • Further reading; do we *really* need all of that?
    • External links still needs pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT, and in fact, contains some items that actually belong in Further reading rather than External links. The DMOZ links should give a reader most of what they need.
    • A thorough copyedit is still needed. Here are just a few examples:
      • Diagnosis is based on the self-reported experiences of the patient as well as abnormalities in behavior reported by family members or friends, followed by secondary signs observed by a psychiatrist, social worker, clinical psychologist or other clinician in a clinical assessment. There is a list of criteria that must be met for someone to be so diagnosed. These depend on both the presence and duration of certain signs and symptoms. (Clinical-clinician used three times in one sentence. The sentence "there is a list of criteria" doesn't really say anything.)
      • full blood count to rule out an infective process ... ??? ... infectious ??
        • infectious means able to cause infection i.e. contagious, while infective pertains to an infecting process underway.
          • Since laypersons like myself might not know that, is there a wikilink or can you clarify in the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redundancies, example: The ICD-10 also recognises another two subtypes: good spot
      • Punctuation: This was partly due to the difference in diagnostic systems, the US used the DSM-II manual, while Europe used the ICD-9, each of which had different descriptions of schizophrenia.
      • Terminology: I'm accustomed to discussions of extrapyramidal side effects, but this terminology may be lost on layreaders. More attention to Wikilinking or definitions of technical terms might be helpful. "Recent reviews have refuted the claim that atypical antipsychotics have fewer extrapyramidal side effects ... " (Also, that conclusion seems overstated, considering "Optimum doses of low-potency conventional antipsychotics might not induce more EPS than new generation drugs."
    • Precision: One study found omega-3 supplements to be effective when used as a dietary supplement ... but ... "Five of six double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia, and four of six such trials in depression, have reported therapeutic benefit from omega-3 fatty acids in either the primary or secondary statistical analysis, particularly when EPA is added on to existing psychotropic medication."
    • Organization: for example, differential diagnosis is discussed in the second paragraph of the Diagnosis section, and then again under a Differential Diagnosis section, which really discusses treatment rather than Differential Diagnosis. Yet neither of these sections gives a full description of other conditions to be ruled out before diagnosing schizophrenia, such as that given at http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2072.htm .
      • Agree we need to clean it up, this reference, however, is by an ER specialist with a very formulaic list of differentials with plenty of very rare things there. I will work on this.
    • There are still fairly significant patches of text that are unreferenced (I listed three articles on the talk page that can be used to source a lot of missing content).
    • Based on the other articles I've read on schizophrenia, I'm still concerned about 1b, comprehensive.
  • The above list is samples only. All in all, the article is on a very good track, but now that more of the content has been nailed down, cleaned up and referenced, some final tweaking of citation needs, copyediting, precision in terminology, and a review for final issues of comprehensiveness should be of benefit, generating a truly excellent article. The hardest work has been done; now, a fresh set of eyes, and reviewing a printout with a critical eye should yield a good final result. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Little change on the items above; are editors reading the FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just a bit busy.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), lack of summary style (4), and citations (1c). Marskell 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent progress has been made on all fronts, but there is still some final tidying and tweaking to be done. Extra eyes to pinpoint any issues would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding a link to version before FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is now fully sourced and generally conforms with WP:MOS and WP:MEDMOS as far as I can tell; I wish some fresh sets of eyes would look over the article to see if anything has been missed; otherwise, if no one finds any problems, I'll be a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that this article either satisfies criteria or otherwise can be fixed very quickly. The prose has been well and truly massaged, the refs all look the same and there are loads of them and I feel the lead summarises the article. I feel we've been as comprehensive yet succinct as possible to keep the article size down.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice work by Sandy et al. Trevor GH5 12:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Schizophrenia/archive1&oldid=1078812245"