I'm nominating this article for featured article because... The article has subsequent informative advice on a type of mental disorder (Dissociation). The mental disorder in question has recived little to no attention in the media as depression seems to peek at the top, yet every single individual on earth will dissociate themself's due to anxiety at some point in there life. Most do not understand that it is a medical condition. Some individuals develop this type of illness due to continues' stress and anxiety.
My main reason for why i think this article should be featured is promimently due to the distinctive pure quality of this article and due to the lack of attention this very serious and misunderstood illness gets.
Outstanding article, very clear; crystal and neutral view. I highly endorse that this article be featured due to it's intresting nature and nicely written features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QualityBadge (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
QualityBadge is a sock of Ecrone, per CU investigation. Struck support, feel free to revise if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - 1) lack of images 2) following one - only image isn't linked to the article, meaning, I'm not sure how it is justified 3) where is the history of the disorder? Did it pop up out of no where? 4) Are the cultural references notable to the disorder? Or is the disorder notable to the references? I think Wikipedia moved against including such lists on the ground that they tend to be collections of trivial information that, if need to be mentioned, are probably in the article of the subject and do not need to be duplicated. Thats just a small list for now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Next ones: 5) redlink "trauma-focused therapy" should be fixed 6) I don't see the connection between the "Different diagnosis", i.e. could you explain these fuller 7) the content seems to be a little thin, and the references should have more information on the subject 8) "key textbooks" seems to be subjective and out of place Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I thank you to the extrimeties for enflutuating your concerns so that i can do my best to fix them. Thanks Again. Ecrone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrone (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps++Lar: t/c 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some mix up in the article itself between the two, for example, in diagnostic instruments. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - DSM IV-TR is current diagnostic classification, not DSM IV. Nitpicky I know but...anyway, more to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For all, it is a rather disturbing illness, since many feel that indeed, they are living in a "dream". - problematic sentence, as very subjective. Second bit also repetitive. I'd propose removing. Could say symptoms are distressing for some maybe, but compare this with almost every psychiatric disorder as most have distressing symptoms.
(ec) Just use well-sourced material for the symptoms. Nothing need be subjective in this article. ICD-10, the current classification, calls it Depersonalization-derealization syndrome (which I realize is a redirect, but still, that should be fixed by someone). (I did not specify which DSM, so no one has to nit pick.) Also, bunches of PMID primary source references without good survey articles or books is not reliable sourcing, from my point of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
ICD 10 Dx should be mentioned in lead too, as well as Dx section.
Fluorescent lighting is reported to increase the effects of depersonalization. - needs a reference
Last para of Symptoms needs referencing, and also a copyedit
Second para of Causes talks of symptom, not disorder and needs to go under symptoms bit.
Third para of Causes is inreferenced
Clinically, diagnoses are generally made by clinicians after one or more interviews. Very few psychiatric diagnoses aremade with structured interviews alone. They are more used for research and psychometrics or as additional tools.
Last half of Epidemiology section needs referencing
Cultural References needs to be converted to prose, not bulleted, and needs referencing. I will be able to help with this later.
Ref 1 (Depersonalization disorder...) is lacking ALL bibliographical details besides the website link.
Current ref 7 (Simeon, D. Depersonalization disorer...) is lacking a last access date
Current ref 23 Henri Frederic Amiels ... is lacking all bibliographic details.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, this clearly has potential, but there are too many problems to fix during an FAC. For example, the prose needs work and the article needs more citations. Here are some.
The lead is very long and repetitive (e.g. repetition about how the patient feels) and doesn't flow logically.
A number of paragraphs lack any citations.
The first sentence is a fragment.
Often a victim of DPD feels as if he or she is going insane, though this is almost never the case. - out of place in this paragraph.
The symptoms include a sense of automation, going through the motions of life but not experiencing it, feeling as though one is in a movie, feeling as though one is in a dream, feeling a disconnection from one's body, out-of-body experience, a detachment from one's body, environment and difficulty relating oneself to reality. For all, it is a rather disturbing illness, since many feel that indeed, they are living in a "dream". - too long and difficult to read.
Victims of the disorder relatively feel as though their 'individuality' has been lost or changed, occupying this an individual with the disorder may feel as though, when he/she looks in the mirror, he/she feels a "stranger" to him/her self. very difficult sentence. The word victims should be avoided.
associated as a comorbid disorder - redundant
The first two links in the External links section should definitely be removed, the fourth probably should. I'm not sure about the third.
The "Key Texts – Books" section seems to be making a statement about these sources, I don't think the article should state that they're "key". How about "Further reading"?
Capitalize only the first word (and proper nouns) in headings.
The Cultural References section is just a bulleted list, it would be better to have some prose and more than just trivia--how about more depth in cultural relevance?
The last point about American Psycho under Cultural References appears to be OR: it is not cited and it reads like the author of the article is diagnosing the character themselves.
The article contains a number of technical terms that should be defined for the lay reader.
It is not necessary to link common, well-known terms like insane.
I'm not trying to be harsh, it's certainly a good effort and with some more work will be first rate. I also noticed a number of good things about the article but have focused on the negative here. I encourage you to keep working on the article, don't hesitate to ask me if I can be of any help with it. delldottalk 04:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.