Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | Schizophrenia
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 by User:Marskell 15:51, 13 October 2008 [1].

Schizophrenia

edit
previous FAR (24 June 2007)
Notified Casliber, Vaughan, WP Psych, and WP Med. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last review in 2007, this article has apparently gone from ~60KB to ~127KB. There are several sections which are supposed to be summarizing subarticles which probably go into too much detail. Two people have complained that the article is not accessible simply because it is a bit jargony or densely written. I've simplified the vocabulary in the lead section, but the rest of the article still needs a going-over. A lot of comments have piled up on the talk page, some of which probably need dealing with by people familiar with the subject in order to address potential flaws in the article. Those that have been dealt with need to be archived. -- Beland (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the article size is incorrect or misleading. It passed FAR one year ago with 6400 words of readable prose; it is currently at 7400 words of readable prose. Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications and post them back to here (see sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications still incomplete, almost a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't have time for a lot of bureaucracy at the moment; I just wanted to raise a flag here since the problems seem pervasive and obvious. -- Beland (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you want someone else (who doesn't have a lot of time) to do the notifications for you and you don't have time to follow the review. Well, since I don't see much wrong with the article, I suggest we close the review since you don't have time (in fact, even if you do have time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just put notifications on the same WikiProjects that were notified for the first review; if I'd thought of that before it would have been a lot less daunting. It took not very much longer than leaving this message, so no biggie. -- Beland (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're also supposed to notify editors: we're all busy, and I'm not getting a salary to do it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At quick glance, I don't see any deterioration in the article, although the Drug section and Alternative approaches have seen recent changes and sourcing there should be reviewed for WP:UNDUE and strength of sourcing. Other than that, I don't see concern or a lot of unresolved issues on talk. That's based on a quick glance and a diff of recent editing. Please be more specific about what the issues are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the article, in its current shape, would get my support if it was at FAC. With that said, I don't see any problems that would be worth an FAR. I see a few minor things (some sections could be merged together, the occasional line with a source in the middle but not at the end of the paragraph, the need for a few paragraphs having an end citation, a left side image "Data from a PET study" that should probably be moved right because it overrides the subsections, "John Nash" image caption should probably be shortened, and a further reading section that could go if needed). However, there is nothing that I could see really disqualify this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise, the article was at 130,965 bytes at 21:44, 8 October 2008, and 89,597 bytes at 22:20 17 June 2007. 130kb is a bit alarming, though on the other hand, the article does have a huge number of footnotes and whatnot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beland (talk • contribs) 05:15, October 10, 2008
In the subarticle summaries, as I explain in the next paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, what contributes to the feeling that the article is overly lengthy are the long summaries of the subarticles Causes of schizophrenia and Treatment of schizophrenia. Usually subarticle summaries aren't more than a single section, and I find that to be a comfortable length. Summary style isn't quite being followed; this article has content (like Image:Schizophrenia_PET_scan.jpg) that the causes article doesn't have. The whole summary of Causes could I think be done in three paragraphs. For instance, for an overview of genetic factors, I don't really need to know about copy number variants, it's enough to say how strong the heritability is and that multiple genes are involved. The "Neural" section is dense reading; it sounds like there are two theories worth knowing about, which are both tentative, and then a few details about areas of the brain where malfunctions appear to have been localized. It's unclear that the "Drugs" subsection is an accurate summary of Causes_of_schizophrenia#Substance_use; they seem to disagree about whether or not there is evidence for non-cannabis hallucinogens actually causing schizophrenia, and there are grammatical errors in the summary. Three paragraphs is probably also the level of detail I'd want to see for the Treatment summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beland (talk • contribs) 05:15, October 10, 2008
  • Reply/Comment - these high traffic articles can go up and down in size quite quickly and do sometimes flab up. I will compare versions and see what needs to be done. The subarticles have attracted quite a bit of attention which has not been vetted as much as the parent article, and the subject of schizophrenia has alot of wide-ranging views and interested parties, so some odd stuff is liable to creep in from time to time. I'll see if I can address specific issues as they come up - Beland, balancing jargon and plain speech can be tricky. If you can cite specific areas where improvement is possible, I will see what I can do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skimming through the rest of the article, I can see why it feels long, even if there aren't many words. The prose is just dense. "Screening and prevention" uses passive voice, "Prognosis" buries the most important facts instead of using Wikipedia:Summary style. The DSM and ISD definitions are jargony. (What's the difference between a delusion and a hallucination? What's "derailment"? Do all three criteria need to be met? What is a psychomotor disturbance? What is meant by "insidious"?) The first featured article criterion is that the article be "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;". I think that's clearly not met here, especially given that two people have complained on the talk page that the article was hard to read. -- Beland (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just ran through, and found very little that needs attention in terms of basic cleanup: the article is still very clean and far better than many Medicine articles that should come to FAR. Some images needed adjustment to conform with WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images, there is a bit of WP:OVERLINKing that might be reviewed, and I found some WP:PUNC logical quotation errors that are always hard to spot (pls doublecheck as you go through). The biggest MoS issue I see right now is that Beland is introducing a breach of Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists to the lists that will need to be cleaned up; since Beland "doesn't have a lot of time", someone else may need to do that cleanup eventually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an edit conflict which caused me to temporarily revert Sandy's list cleanup. I went back and tried to both make the lists clearer and conform to the Manual of Style. Sorry for the confusion. -- Beland (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lists you have introduced do not conform to MOS, before or after the edit conflict; please read the MoS page I've cited to you three times. If you don't understand MoS, then please don't revert others who do. The article was fairly clean before your edits (as expected, since Cas is one of our top FA writers); there's no need to damage an FA during FAR. If your time is so limited, then perhaps you can focus on explaining where you think there are issues so we can address them. We're all just as busy as you are; since you don't allow your own talk page to be used to continue conversations started with you, please don't clutter my talk page with your talk. I already have more orange bars than the average bear. Someone else will need to clean up the bulleted lists still. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use numbers rather than bullets only if:
    • there is a need to refer to the elements by number;
    • the sequence of the items is critical; or
    • the numbering has value of its own, for example in a track listing.
  • All elements in a list should use the same grammatical form and should be consistently either complete sentences or sentence fragments.
    • When the elements are complete sentences, they are formatted using sentence case and a final period.
    • When the elements are sentence fragments, they are typically introduced by a lead fragment ending with a colon, are formatted using consistently either sentence or lower case, and finish with a final semicolon or no punctuation, except that the last element typically finishes with a final period.
Also, now hyphens instead of endashes, and changing the list style to partially use hyphens (meant to be endashes I suppose) while the rest of the list doesn't; keeping a list so these issues can later be fixed, and noting that they were not present in the article pre-FAR. [2] Because Beland has already reverted me twice, I can't begin fixing these items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit, to correct a left-aligned image under a third-level heading, per WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESS was removed; still need to re-do that and shorten the image caption on the Nash image, but I don't want to edit under these circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, rather than clutter this page, I have made a discussion section here where we can try and address some jargon lapses. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that discussion has moved to article and user talk, I am closing this. Marskell (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Schizophrenia/archive2&oldid=1078812250"