Talk:Animal models of schizophrenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Psychiatry (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Comments[edit]

  • Schizophrenia is capitalized in the WP:LEAD unnecessarily
  • Can the lead, with a sentence or two maybe, describe which species are the best models when, or if there is a significant gap/unidentified need in a certain area? This is an ignorant comment, I assume this knowledge exists.
  • I think "models were the most widely used, these" should be "models, were the most widely used. These" in the lead
  • Should it be "Pharmacological models manipulate" if they are still used? All that is said in the lead is just that the historical models were the most widely used, they could logically still be a minority of research.
  • Maybe we can get a sentence or less of what a schizophrenia lesion is so there is an accessible definition in the beginning of the article
  • Maybe we could also get some clarification for readers on the difference between a positive and a negative symptom
  • I hope these are helpful so far. I limited my scrutiny to the lead, without looking at the body. Biosthmors (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


  • I think the phenotype section looks odd. Might it be better as WP:PROSE? Or prose and tables? Or prose and a list? It seems like it is too much of a prose list at this point. Biosthmors (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I see where you're coming from there, but I'm not sure if I agree. If this was changed into full prose, it would likely make a a bad paragraph, or a few very short paragraphs. The list format itself is approved of in MOS:LIST, and I think it complies with WP:PROSE, because the list is essentially a glossary. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I notice there is a 2002 source that is cited a fair amount of times. Might we be able to replace it with more recent ones? Biosthmors (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Animal models of schizophrenia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): 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):
  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):
    Main picture's source is dead
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Note: Hi Tomcat, and thanks for reviewing the article. Just to let you know that I won't be available to respond to your comments for about a week due to university exams this week and next. If you decide to put the review on hold to allow issues to be resolved, I hope you don't mind if it takes longer than expected to complete the review. I will be back actively editing on the 18th of December, and I may do some editing in between if I have time. Thank's again, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay.

  • ", this comes from the discovery of increased L-DOPA decarboxylase levels in the brains of these patients." - you can not split main clauses by placing a comma; either convert it to a semicolon, or reword.
  • Are only rats and mices used? If yes, why exactly.
  • The language is tough but I guess it is ok for medicine articles. --Tomcat (7) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Both issues fixed now, I think. I would appreciate it if you could give an example or two of where the language could be improved (even if it's not an issue for the GA criteria). I'd like to make the article accessible to the general reader, while remaining precise and accurate (a difficult balance to strike for technical topics). Thanks again for the review. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sasata (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • This is a topic with a large body of literature, and it seems odd that only 9 references were used. I have my doubts that this topic can be adequately summarized in the 1700 words currently comprising the article. Did none of these articles (all secondary sources (i.e. reviews), published since 2010, and therefore WP:MEDRS-compliant) have any relevant information?
PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed
  • I also find it odd that a recent (2011), 290-page text by a leading authority in the field (Patricio O'Donnell; several of the reviews above are authored by him) was cited only once (no page #, by the way). Was there nothing in this book that could be used to help fill out this article?
    • On the O'Donnell book, I only have access to a number of pages via the Springer website. My university library does not provide full access. On the other sources, and comprehensiveness concerns, I will review the situation and have a response probably tomorrow. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Any updates on the sourcing front? Maybe failing for now would be best until the writer's had time to get through some of them. Wizardman 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not the reviewer, but I'd agree, especially as Quasihuman has been inactive since December 21. Sasata (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I left Quasihuman a message. I hope they are doing OK. They can always make edits to improve the article and then re-nominate. I encourage them to do so if they become active again. Biosthmors (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Closing per above. Wizardman 05:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)