Psychosis does not have adequate inline citations (1c), does not have an adequate lead which summarizes the article (2a), has one-sentence and stubby paragraphs and many weasle words (1a), does not conform to suggested headings per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) and does not conform to
WP:GTL (2), does not appear comprehensive per sections missing from MCOTW guidelines and the brevity of important sections (1b), is very listy, and doesn't appear to rely on the best possible sources for a medical article. It is not up to current FA standards.
Sandy22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)reply
They are linked above (sorry, they changed the name to incorporate Manual of Style rather than Medical Collaboration of the Week). The FAR process allows for two weeks of review, and then if the article has not been brought to standard, another two weeks of FARC. You might also want to look at
Asperger syndrome, which recently went through FARC and was mostly brought to standard.
Sandy12:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove featured status. Reams of unsupported statements. Too little on the anthropological significance of psychosis (were psychotics seen as "possessed" in the past?) Flow is chaotic (no attempt at systemising the information).
JFW |
T@lk21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)reply
And then there's the unqualified assertion that CBT, of all things, is recommended for psychotic people. The only I've ever read that said that simply tacked it on at the conclusion-end, which everyone noticed (it's some British psychiatry journal somewhere).--
Rmky8714:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Move to FARC for further work. Substantial improvement has been made during FAR (
see diff), but the article is still far from meeting FA standards. It doesn't yet conform with
WP:MEDMOS, and most of the text remains uncited. Perhaps the medical editors can let us know if they consider the rest of the work doable.
Sandy16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)reply
FARC commentary
Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations (1c), failure to meet MoS (2), comprehensiveness (1b), and writing quality (1a).Marskell08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove, works appears to have stopped, large sections remain unsourced and the whole thing probably needs someone with at least a passing knowledge of the field to assess it. The lead is too short as well. --
Peta05:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I am, and I'm a she. I don't know if I can, though. This is the first time in ages that I've felt up to adding content in the form of *gasp* meaningful sentences instead of, well, chickenshit, honestly and I don't know how long it will last (suffice it to say that I just couldn't get an appointment sooner than Tuesday of Thanksgiving week, you can probably guess what for).--
Rmky8702:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm so sorry for the mistake, Rmky87. Normally I would use s/he, but when I asked
Jfdwolff (
talk·contribs) about the work on the Psychosis article, he mentioned you and another editor, saying "[t]hose boys can be relied upon to fix psychosis."
Sandy02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment What's a good example of an article with a "Notable cases" section? I want to know what we're aiming for here.--
Rmky8719:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)reply
You wouldn't happen to know anyone with access to those psychosis and leprosy citations, would you? They're in the American Journal of Psychiatry, and they're the only ones I could find that didn't make it clear that
dapsone was the causative agent. The 1959 one had enough abstract to make it clear that leprosy was supposed to be the one stressor at play. The one from 1974 has a PDF that I can't get to. I don't know what it's saying about the 1959 paper.--
Rmky8721:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, if anyone wants to write the "social impact" section, and they have the creative capacity to do so, start
here and click on "Related Articles".--
Rmky8700:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I've had limited internet access, and have much catching up to do. I have not changed my Remove vote, as there are still unreferenced sections, and in spite of multiple requests, I haven't been able to entice one of the WikiPhysicians or members of the Psychology project to review the article. There are still concerns about the article: in spite of Rmky87's commendable effort to greatly improve the article, I remain a reluctant remove. It's too bad no one from the Psychology or Medicine WikiProjects will review, as this article could be close to a keep.
Sandy (
Talk)
16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi there, I'm the main editor for the psychosis article, and when I get some time. I'll be happy to make the appropriate references as this seems to be the main issue. -
Vaughan06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Psychosis does not have adequate inline citations (1c), does not have an adequate lead which summarizes the article (2a), has one-sentence and stubby paragraphs and many weasle words (1a), does not conform to suggested headings per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) and does not conform to
WP:GTL (2), does not appear comprehensive per sections missing from MCOTW guidelines and the brevity of important sections (1b), is very listy, and doesn't appear to rely on the best possible sources for a medical article. It is not up to current FA standards.
Sandy22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)reply
They are linked above (sorry, they changed the name to incorporate Manual of Style rather than Medical Collaboration of the Week). The FAR process allows for two weeks of review, and then if the article has not been brought to standard, another two weeks of FARC. You might also want to look at
Asperger syndrome, which recently went through FARC and was mostly brought to standard.
Sandy12:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove featured status. Reams of unsupported statements. Too little on the anthropological significance of psychosis (were psychotics seen as "possessed" in the past?) Flow is chaotic (no attempt at systemising the information).
JFW |
T@lk21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)reply
And then there's the unqualified assertion that CBT, of all things, is recommended for psychotic people. The only I've ever read that said that simply tacked it on at the conclusion-end, which everyone noticed (it's some British psychiatry journal somewhere).--
Rmky8714:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Move to FARC for further work. Substantial improvement has been made during FAR (
see diff), but the article is still far from meeting FA standards. It doesn't yet conform with
WP:MEDMOS, and most of the text remains uncited. Perhaps the medical editors can let us know if they consider the rest of the work doable.
Sandy16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)reply
FARC commentary
Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations (1c), failure to meet MoS (2), comprehensiveness (1b), and writing quality (1a).Marskell08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove, works appears to have stopped, large sections remain unsourced and the whole thing probably needs someone with at least a passing knowledge of the field to assess it. The lead is too short as well. --
Peta05:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I am, and I'm a she. I don't know if I can, though. This is the first time in ages that I've felt up to adding content in the form of *gasp* meaningful sentences instead of, well, chickenshit, honestly and I don't know how long it will last (suffice it to say that I just couldn't get an appointment sooner than Tuesday of Thanksgiving week, you can probably guess what for).--
Rmky8702:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm so sorry for the mistake, Rmky87. Normally I would use s/he, but when I asked
Jfdwolff (
talk·contribs) about the work on the Psychosis article, he mentioned you and another editor, saying "[t]hose boys can be relied upon to fix psychosis."
Sandy02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment What's a good example of an article with a "Notable cases" section? I want to know what we're aiming for here.--
Rmky8719:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)reply
You wouldn't happen to know anyone with access to those psychosis and leprosy citations, would you? They're in the American Journal of Psychiatry, and they're the only ones I could find that didn't make it clear that
dapsone was the causative agent. The 1959 one had enough abstract to make it clear that leprosy was supposed to be the one stressor at play. The one from 1974 has a PDF that I can't get to. I don't know what it's saying about the 1959 paper.--
Rmky8721:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, if anyone wants to write the "social impact" section, and they have the creative capacity to do so, start
here and click on "Related Articles".--
Rmky8700:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I've had limited internet access, and have much catching up to do. I have not changed my Remove vote, as there are still unreferenced sections, and in spite of multiple requests, I haven't been able to entice one of the WikiPhysicians or members of the Psychology project to review the article. There are still concerns about the article: in spite of Rmky87's commendable effort to greatly improve the article, I remain a reluctant remove. It's too bad no one from the Psychology or Medicine WikiProjects will review, as this article could be close to a keep.
Sandy (
Talk)
16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi there, I'm the main editor for the psychosis article, and when I get some time. I'll be happy to make the appropriate references as this seems to be the main issue. -
Vaughan06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply