Wikipedia:Featured article review/Psychosis

Psychosis

Review commentary

This article was promoted during the "Brilliant prose" days: there is no original or main editor. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychopathology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine.

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. Sandy 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Where can we find the MCOTW guidelines? I suggest defeaturing or immediate emergency surgery.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:03, 22 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. Sandy 12:20, 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@lk 21:17, 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).--Rmky87 14:36, 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. Sandy 16:21, 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). Marskell 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs further citations, and needs removal of weasly statements. LuciferMorgan 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless someone quickly begins to work on the article, which is massively undercited, contains weasle words, and doesn't conform to WP:MEDMOS. Sandy 14:47, 10 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. --Peta 05:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. In some sections I see no citations and in others I see in one sentence three citations in a row+stubby sections.--Yannismarou 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I just noticed Rmky87 (talk · contribs) has done a lot of work on the article: I left a message asking if he's aiming for a save, and if we should hold off on the votes. Sandy 01:59, 16 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).--Rmky87 02:38, 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." Sandy 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That's quite all right.--Rmky87 12:13, 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.--Rmky87 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out Asperger syndrome. Joelito (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - AS won't help: have a look at Tourette syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, as recommended at WP:MEDMOS. Sandy 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you.--Rmky87 21:52, 19 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.--Rmky87 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access: you could ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. By the way, you don't have to have a Social Impact or a Notable cases section: you can delete those stubs rather than try to fill them with something. Sandy (Talk) 22:03, 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".--Rmky87 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Progress has stalled in this one. Where do we stand? Joelito (talk) 14:58, 24 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]
  - There are still referencing problems and quite a few stubby sections and sub-sections.--Yannismarou 12:53, 25 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. - Vaughan 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]