Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2011

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

May 2011

edit

Kept status

edit
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 Dana boomer 14:21, 10 May 2011 [1].

Tasmanian Devil

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: PDH, UtherSRG, Graham87, Wikiproject Australia, Wikiproject Mammals

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe this article no longer represents Wikipedia's best work. Since 2005, there have been significant developments in the literature on devil facial tumour disease, a significant threat to the Tassie Devils. However, these developments are not represented in the article at FA-level prose. (1a) There has also been an adult non-fiction book about the Tassie Devils published in 2005 which would be help the article be better researched. (1c) It is co-authored by "the Program Leader for Wildlife Conservation within the Department of Primary Industries and Water". David Owen is a difficult name to search for, but the book has been favourably reviewed by New Scientist, so it should pass WP:RS. The summary style is improper between the daughter article and the main article, and it perhaps places too much weight on the disease, given that there is a whole article devoted to the disease. (4) I've merged the material over to the daughter article but am hesitant to create a summary at the main article. Would appreciate any comments. --Malkinann (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - yes, needs some work definitely (formatting --> straightforward, but comprehensiveness --> more of a challenge). That book would be good to get to look at, and hopefully we can move it from further reading section to a references section soon enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bilby's uni has the book in digital version. Hopefully he can download it and hand it around. Owen also wrote an analogous book for Thylacine which is another old FA. Hopefully at worst the book is not one of those readable things that you can't save or cut and paste YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I know nothing but I can't see any honest justification for 16k prose when a whole book is available and the thing is much more famous than the Green and Golden Bell Frog YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The behaviour and ecology section concerns me the most. --Malkinann (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yep, don't wanna add garbage, though. I'm sure there would be plenty of folk to help out. Aaroncrick TALK 10:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are they?? :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, threats to the TD which aren't DFTD. --Malkinann (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the problem with foxes... Aaroncrick TALK 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also getting the impression that because they're scavengers, the TDs go for roadkill, and end up as roadkill themselves. --Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would an 'in captivity' section be helpful? --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Aaroncrick TALK 00:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have tagged up the article based on this discussion. Hopefully this will act as an aide-de-memoir and draw attention to the FAR, rather than being taken as a WP:TAGBOMB. --Malkinann (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently when the TD was extinct on the mainland has a few competing theories/is discussed in the literature. Also needs more on the TD's ancestry. --Malkinann (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs in the lede/intro of the article - per WP:LEAD, these should be expanded or merged, in fact, the whole lede/intro size should be expanded upon a bit more. There are some referencing issues, and also short paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs, in the article body text itself as well. I know the Looney Tunes bit should not be a significant chunk relative to the total size of the article, but perhaps this could be expanded upon a wee bit more, perhaps two more sentences on this, and other instances in popular culture. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all this - by the time we've finished with it I expect the article will have doubled in size, so a couple of more sentences on Taz will be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Owen/Pemberton book rather annoying as it is almost all random anecdotes and some fluff, and the random specimens it discusses could just be outliers and the like YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Casliber (talk · contribs), okay, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article still needs:
  • More on the genetics, in general
    • also, showing that there are two distinct populations of TDs and why the lit. thinks this is so.
  • More on the home range.
  • More on the social network.
  • Have we covered enough of early settlers' impressions of the devil? Could we use a sketch to convey something about this?
  • Also, we don't have any pictures of older, fatter, devils in the article - only young, cuter, devils are represented, which is probably a bad thing, but possibly not a concern for FA?
  • The DFTD section still needs a rewrite. I've been improving the daughter article a bit in anticipation of this.
  • Evolution of the devil, treeclimbing ancestor.
  • More on how they move around an area/disperse.
  • For wiki-issues, the article needs a reshuffle, rationalisation of the section names, and a copyedit/refcleanup. There's no such thing as a MOS for animals?
You've done some great work thus far on the article, I'm amazed by how far it's come. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I feel spent YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more people pitching in, else we won't get anywhere. The article won't die if it gets to 50k, it's about 40 atm. But everyone has the pdf of the book, so what's the matter? :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the article as it was just prior to FAR - it's improved tremendously. It could be the time of year that everyone's busy? --Malkinann (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry I haven't been much use so far. I am actually in a good position to prioritise working on this wiki-wise curently, just have no idea how much free time I actually have at present (much to do...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I am reorganising into subsections like many other biology FAs. This helps give the article more structure, and also identifies what is still missing. There is no MOS as such, but most bio FAs follow a similar structure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the article to be comprehensive, do we have to use more of the stuff from Web of Science that Casliber pulled up on the talk page? --Malkinann (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is good in these cases to check them off as much as possible, so noting ones which have information which is too specific/not of interest to the general reader or already covered elsewhere. Especially prudent if we're still concerned about comprehensiveness. I might have a bit more time this week, depending on RL circumstances. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been feeling really jetlagged the past few days, my brain is only cranking into gear for complicated stuff now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
looks good. I was thinking of doing the same thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What more is wanted from the in captivity section? Not a lot is different, and O/P hardly has anything of substance apart from some anecdotes of humans patting them on the head at a zoo, and transcripts of interviews without much pertinent. Also DFTD is now under the human section as conservation is under humans, which creates a problem YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe stuff like the FREs? Where would breeding and release programs go? It seems that, with DFTD predicted to spread across the entire range of the devil, (and populations estimated to become locally extinct within 15 yrs of disease introduction - McCallum, H et al. (2007). "Distribution and Impacts of Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease") - well, it doesn't look good for the survival of the TD. :( I've done another reorganisation attempt which has conservation not in the human section, so that it doesn't look anthropogenic. Is that any better? --Malkinann (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that looks good too. Onre thing I have done before is place Conservation sections as subsections of Distribution and habitat sections, as in a way it is a focus on distribution/population, but often in articles where it is a big issue (such as Kakapo and this one), full section status is an option too). Either good. I am happy to follow your lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the writeup is good. (barring actually having, you know, read the paper). Says we thought TDs were solitary, research was performed, and this is the actual situation, and explains the actual situation. There's a 2008 paper which goes into seasonal stuff and the TDs meeting, but perhaps the 2009 paper supercedes it? Just as a general note, I find I'm rubbish at juicing information out of papers - so I feel more comfortable marking them as in the article than confidently done. --Malkinann (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gah, spoke too soon - "Although they hunt alone,[33] there have been unsubstantiated claims of communal hunting where one repels prey out of its habitat and an accomplice attacks,[67] eating is a social event for the Tasmanian devil. This combination of a solitary animal that eats communally makes the devil unique among carnivores.[53]" - this does not reference the 2009 study or gel with it. --Malkinann (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a read. Often the best thing is to list out how the various studies make their observations - eg the radio collars for the 2009 field study etc. I can embellish it a bit and send to you guys as it is quite interesting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it. The radio collar study says that most of the time the devils were alone, but that they interacted with other devils quite often. They did note that male-male interactions were rare (better add that). I have to download the fulltetext of the radio study again :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had very little sleep the last couple of days due to RL commitments, so really cerebral stuff is a bit of a challenge, but the end is in sight :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Just got a book on Carnivorous marsupials by Archer et al from the library, so should have a good overview to get an idea of coverage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Nothing has happened in the review section for close to a month, so moving to the FARC section. Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness and due weight. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YM asked me to look into this before he took his break, so I'm taking a pile of readings and I'll try and do what I can for it in a week. I'm stuck on the water with no internet access until then, but I should be able to make a shot at it upon my return, once I have a better feel for the topic. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilby! Could we get an update as to a possible time frame for this article? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally got all the reading out the way. :) I'll see what I can do over the next couple of days. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dealt with/updated Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a cleanup banner in the facial tumour section.
It is in error. actually summarises the daughter article okay. What /both/ articles lack is what the disease /looks/ like in much detail. I am looking into it and it shouldn't be difficult at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation needed tag in the Cultural references section.
This could be solved by some rewording of the reference to the character - given the apparent non-notability of the Tasmanian Devil character, and the existence of comic book death, it might just be simpler to cite that a character by that name exists, without going into detail about origin and (apparently outdated) death. --Malkinann (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When?" tag in the feeding section.
I placed this tag - asking if the citation is to Guiler (1970) or Guiler (1992). --Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be 1970, see the page range Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'I can see the finishing line in this one. On a bit of a roll now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is work moving along on these final points? Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restated the DC superhero mention to say merely that he exists, which is all I can source. With this, I believe all of the issues you've raised with the article are taken care of. --Malkinann (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Happy to keep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It has several instances of centimetres with decimal precimal. It may be better to use millimetres instead.

Not a strongly held opinion. Feel free to ignore. Lightmouse (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I have been advised to change measurements in mm in the past when I've used mm for smaller ones and cm for bigger ones. Also the cm ones have inche conversions which are even smaller. I can see this is an either/or type situation - given the inch conversions I am inclined to leave as is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Dana boomer 15:10, 2 May 2011 [2].

Schizophrenia

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Vaughan, Casliber, SandyGeorgia, EverSince, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Medicine,

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is missing a tremendous amount of information regarding the neurological, genetic, neuroanatomical, neuropathophysiological, imaging and other hard-core-scientific information on schizophrenia. The absence of inclusion of major scientific articles (review articles, even), the lack of up-to-date information and the mental health bias that this article is written from all culminates in failing the FA standards. Basket of Puppies 23:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, areas 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a. 1b as it is missing a vast amount of information on the neurology and genetics, 1c as it is missing nearly all the latest research from the past 10 years, 1d as there is a strong bias for this being labeled a mental health disease and not a neurological disorder and 2a as the lede is in very poor shape (overly long, too many references). Basket of Puppies 23:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified editors talkpages and projects that seem concerned. Basket of Puppies 23:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this review. When I saw the article's talk page, you only notified the whole thing yesterday. I think more time should have gone by before the review was made. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The review hasn't been made. I am opening it here to that we can work collaboratively to improve the article. Basket of Puppies 00:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basket, you created this page within less than 48 hours of your first-ever comments on the article's talk page—comments that have been responded to appropriately, but not (reasonably enough) with busy people dropping everything during the holidays to instantly do your bidding.
You should not have created this page at this time. You should have tried to improve the article by continuing the existing discussion at the article rather than starting a discussion here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I am not allowed to use Wikipedia process? Or do I have to ask you for permission? Seriously? Basket of Puppies 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to follow the written directions, which say, in step one, "attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors", not "if you don't get what you want instantly, then be sure to rush right over here and create a formal FAR page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for making your position clear. Now, if you're so inclined, there is a large section below indicating the large and vast sections of the article that are unreferenced, outdated and missing. Care to help improve the article? Basket of Puppies 16:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is all wrong, because I have raised the issue of FAR many times, repeatedly, over a long period of time on talk. This FAR should proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before, BoP Iwould be not only happy but insanely grateful if you would havea look at the sources and summarise the neuroimaing stuff. I have been involved with this article for a few years now - gets pretty boring after while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a minor content issue. Still an FA IMO. Also still part of psychiatry last time I checked. Have not seen neurologists keen to get involved. MRIs are not used to diagnose schizophrenia at this. Thus I would expect a "mental health bias" as it is a mental health problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by "minor content issue" you mean missing vast amounts of information, the current article presenting information incorrectly and lacking the last 10 years of research, then yes I agree it's a minor issue. This article also doesn't meet FA standards. Basket of Puppies 03:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRIs are used to diagnose schizophrenia. Basket of Puppies 03:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Research paper and primary source (admit it is interesting thoug). Not what we do in clinical practice. Hence specialised information and not 'central'. Diagnosis is made on clinical grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uptodate does not mention MRI as being useful for confirming schizophrenia. This may be okay for a research section if you can find a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update on the use of MR for assessment and diagnosis of psychiatric diseases, a very good article I think. Basket of Puppies 04:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Areas to improve

The following areas are in need of updating, improvement and expansion. They are all nearly 10 years behind where the research is.

Neuralanatomical imaging Sections need to be divided into MRI, fMRI, DT-MRI, CT, PET and EEG findings. Each shows many different things and there is a lot of research that is not represented in the article. For example, the asymmetric P300 EEG findings are not represented at all and should be. This paper shows parietal lobe volume reductions in schizophrenia patients but the word "parietal" doesn't even appear in the article.

Neurophysiological issues The article emphasized a role of dopamine while completely ignoring ErbB4 protein dysfunction in schizophrenia. We have largely moved away from the dopamine imbalances to a more global protein issue.

Genetic At present there are 40 candidate genes being studied for their role in schizophrenia. This is not represented at all and needs to be included.

If you are wondering just who I am and why I am saying all of this, I have done extensive amount of graduate work on schizophrenia and am rather up on all of the research. I hope you understand my intentions are pure and only meant to improve the article and lead to a better wiki. I just cannot, in good conscience, see how this article even remotely meets the FA criteria. It will take a few months of work to get the article updated and improved to the point where it can be reconsidered for FA status. Basket of Puppies 03:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removing this article's FA status. Missing sections, big chunks of unreferenced information and some sections which seriously need to be expanded (the entirety of "Society and culture", for example. Ironholds (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; delist or keep are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Article is still a FA. These issues are in the research stage. Not important clinically at this point and thus not needed for the FA status. The second ref is a primary research study thus not recommended to be used per WP:MEDRS the first is not characterized as a review either by pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DJ, are you saying that this article needs to be limited to the clinical presentation of schizophrenia and that research can be excluded? Basket of Puppies 04:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's saying that the issues you're discussing aren't established parts of medicine regarding Schizophrenia, not that only clinical, practical matters are worth including ("clinical" was probably just a poorly chosen word). Ironholds (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about the massive areas which aren't covered and the chunks of unreferenced text? And clinical or no, if they're reliable, third-party sources you have to come up with something better than "they're not clinically important at this point" to justify their irrelevance. Ironholds (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which "massive areas" are you refering to? Genetics is discussed. Neuroimaging is not used in diagnosis except to rule out other causes. I do not see the "chunks of unreferenced text". This page is 139,425 bites of text. It is on the long side as it is. Some text should actually be split of into subarticles if anything. What I am saying is that if you wish to discuss research please use review articles. And all the is really needed is a brief summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, are you claiming that this article needs to be limited to clinical information only? Basket of Puppies 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Diseases such as schizophrenia have been vastly researched and WP articles can not include every piece of info on them. Many times even reviews on a subtopic of the disease are too specific to be included in a main article. A rule of thumb I have used in other similar articles is that if a fact is commented in a general review of the disease then it probably merits inclusion, if not it is probably very specific, and while still interesting it would not go a against content criteria. Do issues commented above appear in a general review of the disease? --Garrondo (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment Garrondo, I am not suggesting that rare subtopics be covered in depth but rather the basic, fundamental aspects of the disease be covered with up-to-date information that isn't 10 years out of date. Basket of Puppies 15:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Society and Culture"; three paragraphs that fail to conform with the MOS and give a single unreferenced line on the economic burden. As for unreferenced areas:
  • "There is often an observable pattern of emotional difficulty, for example lack of responsiveness or motivation. Impairment in social cognition is associated with schizophrenia, as are symptoms of paranoia, and social isolation commonly occurs. In one uncommon subtype, the person may be largely mute, remain motionless in bizarre postures, or exhibit purposeless agitation; these are signs of catatonia." - unreferenced.
  • "Diagnosis is based on the self-reported experiences of the person, and abnormalities in behavior reported by family members, friends or co-workers, followed by a clinical assessment by a psychiatrist, social worker, clinical psychologist, mental health nurse or other mental health professional. Psychiatric assessment includes a psychiatric history and some form of mental status examination." - unreferenced"
  • "Psychotic symptoms lasting less than a month may be diagnosed as brief psychotic disorder, and various conditions may be classed as psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. Schizophrenia cannot be diagnosed if symptoms of mood disorder are substantially present (although schizoaffective disorder could be diagnosed), or if symptoms of pervasive developmental disorder are present unless prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present, or if the symptoms are the direct physiological result of a general medical condition or a substance, such as abuse of a drug or medication." - unreferenced.
  • "such as metabolic disturbance, systemic infection, syphilis, HIV infection, epilepsy, and brain lesions. It may be necessary to rule out a delirium, which can be distinguished by visual hallucinations, acute onset and fluctuating level of consciousness, and indicates an underlying medical illness. Investigations are not generally repeated for relapse unless there is a specific medical indication or possible adverse effects from antipsychotic medication." - unreferenced
  • "The Hearing Voices Movement argues that many people diagnosed as psychotic need their experiences to be accepted and valued rather than medicalized." - unreferenced.
  • "It would be greatly beneficial for further research to be done in this area, particularly in the metabolism of various essential amino acids and their pro- and inhibitory effects on neurotransmitter balance." - unreferenced.
  • "The new clinical approach early intervention in psychosis is a secondary prevention strategy to prevent further episodes and prevent the long term disability associated with schizophrenia." - unreferenced.
  • "For other patients who are unwilling or unable to take medication regularly, long-acting depot preparations of antipsychotics may be given every two weeks to achieve control. The United States and Australia are two countries with laws allowing the forced administration of this type of medication on those who refuse, but are otherwise stable and living in the community." - unreferenced.
  • "Lynch, Laws & McKenna found that no trial employing both blinding and psychological placebo has found CBT to be effective in either reducing symptoms or preventing relapse in schizophrenia." - unreferenced.
  • And that's halfway through the article. Still think it deserves an FA star? Ironholds (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds, I think you need to take a closer look at these, because they are not all in violation of the policies. For example, introductory statements that merely summarize what follows in the section do not require individual inline citations. Some of these are referenced, but (apparently) you didn't notice. For example, the Lynch, Laws and McKenna item has an inline citations in the middle of the sentence (you quote only the last half) that gives the full citation to a paper by Lynch, Laws and McKenna. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice; the placing of inline citations before sentence clauses is inappropriate, except in specific situations (for example, at the immediate start of a list, where it is made apparent that the list is referenced to that source. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have long been concerned about this article, and have raised the issue many times on talk. It overrelies on primary sources and needs to be rewritten to secondary reviews to conform with WP:MEDRS. It is extremely long and slow to load because of the excessive reliance on primary sources. It gives undue weight to some primary sources and fringe theories; if it is not improved during FAR, I will be voting to Delist in the FARC phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that it relies far too much on too many primary sources. I also note that what brings Basket of Puppies here is the resistance he encountered when he proposed adding even more primary sources to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article has long needed review and upgrading, even if BoP is off on sourcing and understanding of WP:MEDRS (I see he proposed above the addition of another primary source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both WAID and Sandy my concern was that this was being proposed based on the insufficient coverage of research on neuroimaging, not based on concerns regarding a lack of review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, at least one of the concerns was unrelated to the sources. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of primary sources isn't entirely wrong as long as there are secondary sources also being used with or in place of the primary. However, the most important article of neuroimaging is not a primary source but rather a secondary source. A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia is a secondary source according to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I referenced this journal article on the article talk page. Basket of Puppies 16:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one appears to be nearly 10 years old. We should use something newer. Anyway have found a few reviews on the topic I will integrate when I have time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If people will agree to actually begin updating this article to secondary reviews, I would not be opposed to closing the FAR, subject to revisiting it in the future if issues aren't addressed; working on an article this large while under the pressures of FAR would not be ideal, but something needs to give here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SG, how would you close the FAR? As delisted, I assume, as the article is nowhere near FA standards. I actually came to this article when I was writing a paper entitled Neuropathoanatomy and Neuropathophisiology of Schizophrenia and came to see what the wiki had to say about it, only to find all the information seriously outdated, wrong or missing. I feel that this FAR is necessary in order to keep the momentum going for a major update, but if a close is made then I can see it closed as delisted. Basket of Puppies 17:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be closed as a default keep, pending improvements and revisiting; that is standard. However, we may need to keep the pressure on to encourage work. The biggest problem here is that the 233 citations make it a daunting task to determine how many of them are primary sources, or if any of them are reviews that conform with WP:MEDRS. I see one review used several times (van Os J, Kapur S (August 2009). "Schizophrenia". Lancet 374 (9690): 635–45. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60995-8. PMID 19700006), but the idea of checking the other 232 is a lot to take on. The excess sources may indicate cherrypicking, fringe theories, or outdated info; the article needs to be rewritten to secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SG, this doesn't make any sense. You say that it will be kept as as default keep but then go on to say how the task at hand is daunting. How likely is that every reference will be checked and changed, vast sections become referenced that are currently unreferenced, huge sections are updated and expanded, inaccurate information removed and the article generally improved- all within an acceptable timeframe? It seems to me that this article needs to be immediately demoted from FA, worked on intensely over several months and then reconsidered for FA. Otherwise we are mislead the community and our readership about the scholarship and thoroughness of this article. Recall, I came here because I am author of a paper on schizophrenia and was literally horrified about what I saw. Basket of Puppies 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ever immediately demote FAs at FAR; if work is proceeding, the FAR is likely to remain open for up to three months anyway. Same thing as if work is proceeding without FAR being open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SG, I guess I am not being clear. My point is thus- this article is utterly incomplete, utterly outdated and absolutely does not meet FA standards. How can it possibly claim to represent FA standards when it is anything but close to it. Basket of Puppies 00:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are being clear, but you're not understanding how FAR works. As long as work is proceeding, the FAR stays open; we don't automatically demote anything. Which is why I said I'd agree to the FAR being closed for now as long as work is proceeding, with the aim of revisiting when done. The goal of FAR is to improve articles, not remove stars, and Doc James is hard at work on the article.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)BoP, following up on what Sandy said: because FAR is supposed to be a place to improve articles that may have fallen below FA criteria, no FA is immediately delisted. The minimum time that a FA can be at FAR before being delisted is one month (two weeks at FAR, then two weeks at FARC where actual voting takes place). The only way a FA can be removed from the FAR page before the month is up is by being improved to the point where editors not involved in the improvement process feel that it should remain a FA. If the FAR were to be closed now (by me, as I appear to be the only active FAR delegate), it would be closed as a keep, because that is the default status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is overly bureaucratic and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I am confused as to how this article ever became a FA and shocked that through bureaucracy it will remain despite the clear failure of the article. Basket of Puppies 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are displeased as to the disconnect between the article's current state and its listed status, I would suggest that you assist DocJames and other editors in fixing the article. Improving the article is the fastest way to remedy the disconnect. Dana boomer (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BasketofPuppies, if I understand the rationale correctly, Wikipedia's goal (or one of them) is to have as much featured content as possible. Because of the high standard, the nitpicking and amount of time spent making sure the article is of appropriate quality is great. Since we want to have lots of featured content and avoid paperwork when possible, it is much easier to fix the article than it is to have it delisted and then renominated - the latter takes far more time. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I am going to focus my time on the neurology section. Basket of Puppies 02:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely redone this section. Before and after. Before it was completely unorganized and included vast stretches of inaccurate information while after it is organized by subtopic (type of imaging/investigation) and includes review articles (mostly) on those topics. The formatting may not be perfect, but it's much more up-to-date and, as importantly, accurate. I will continue to work on it for days to come. Now, I go to sleep. :) Basket of Puppies 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When working on medical FAs, it is helpful to review and understand WP:MEDMOS on article structure. See also WP:WIAFA, 2b, on article structure and TOC; we now have a rambling and over-detailed section in an article that already needs to be shortened (now 6250 words from 5900 when you started). If you would work in sandbox, it might be more productive for all. All of that appears to be related to pathyphsiology (sic), and need not cover multiple sections and so much detail. I would not like to see this article delisted because it was damaged at FAR; the goal is improvement-- working consensually with other editors will yield the best result. Perhaps you'd like to include that detail at Mechanisms of schizophrenia so it can be summarized to this overview article? We have now gone from:
3 Mechanisms
3.1 Psychological
3.2 Neural
to:
3 Mechanisms
3.1 Psychological
4 Neurological
4.1 MRI
4.2 fMRI
4.3 DT-MRI
4.4 PET
4.5 CT
4.6 EEG
4.7 Pathyphysiology
which is not an improvement, and doesn't conform with MEDMOS, and there is still (as per talk page consensus) no reason to include the "neurological" heading. Consolidating the text to eliminate the rambling TOC and conform with MEDMOS will be needed; it is unusual and unhelpful to have all imaging findings spread out like this (without commenting on the text itself), and you could have proposed that text on talk. Once again, I fear at this rate that this FAR will not be productive, and the article will end up in worse shape; please work with other editors towards improvement. You've also introduced a multitude of other issues with that text, including prose and others, but I will detail those on talk unless someone else fixes them first, so as not to overburden the FAR page (as one example, this isn't a sentence, has typos, isn't linked, I'm wondering if it should be checked for copyvio, and is much too much detail for an overview article, there is much similar: "Ventricular and third ventricle enlargement, abnormal functioning of the amygdala, hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, neocortical temporal lobe regions, frontal lobe, prefontal gray matter, orbitofrontal areas, parietal lobs abnormalities and subcortical abnormalities including the cavum septi, pellucidi, basal ganglia, corpus callosum, thalamus and cerebellar abnormalities.") That is why editors are encouraged to discuss edits on talk, per WP:OWN#Featured articles (it is not helpful to leave an FA in a damaged state, and others will help with prose, MOS, formatting, and other Wiki guidelines if you propose changes on talk and avoid edit warring). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting sections
edit

Have rewritten the sections on management, prognosis and epidemiology using recent review articles if people wish to comment on these. Will continue to update other sections as able.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update for Dana. Dana, several medical editors (myself included) got distracted by a medical article that appeared at In The News and resolving some of the issues on a Schizophrenia sub-article (those issues seem to be under control now). As far as I know, most of the article has been trimmed and rewritten to secondary reviews, primary sources eliminated. I haven't had time to take a detailed look yet, but I'll re-engage soon. I also plan to beg Malleus to take a look at the prose (I may or may not be successful :) If you can allow this one some additional time in the FAR phase, I think good progress has been made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like good progress has been made. I have no problem with leaving it in the FAR section for a while longer. I hope you are successful in your begging :) Might want to also ping Jappalang for a review of the images, if you think they're about right? Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, forgot! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I still need to focus on the bottom of the article (everything from History down). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to self (or anyone); when the copyedit is done, wikilinking needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns:

  1. File:Eugen Bleuler.jpg: {{PD-Old}}'s assertion of the expiry of copyrights due to the 70-year passing of the work's author is incorrect; the page lists Bleuler's clinic as the author and I doubt a non-living entity can be considered "dead" in the sense of copyright laws. The source is Wehr's Collection Les Grands Suisses, whose earliest publication is 1984 in Germany.[4] The question thus arises over who is the photographer (was it given in the book, did the book say "Courtesy of/Permission by Clinique du Burghözli"); was contact attempted with the clinic? Determining the authorship would decide the proper copyright template for this work (if it is in the public domain for both US, and Germany or Switzerland). The year the photograph was first published (i.e. copies made available to the public, and not just created), if ever before 1984, also needs to be determined.
  2. File:FMRI.jpg: I am unable to see the history/state of this file when it was uploaded to Wikipedia. Generally, the medical personnel/institution holds the copyright to such images. The patient only owns a copy of the work, altough the personnel/institution would still require the patient's permission for use in publication. As such, I am uncertain if the uploader is the copyright holder (or a patient who assumes he or she has the copyright), or even if the assumption was such images are not copyrighted. Noting the low resolution, it might be probable this work came from journals such as this, or some works published several years back.[5][6][7] Seeing how Washington irving has stopped contributing since 2005 and has little file contributions of his or her own, it would be difficult to establish what profession/status the user would likely be (and might be a violation of outing too if done). Replaced by File:Schizophrenia_fMRI_working_memory.jpg, which is good. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:Cloth embroidered by a schizophrenia sufferer.jpg: "A schizophrenic patient at the Glore Psychiatric Museum", or is it meant to be "A schizophrenic patient at the State Lunatic Asylum No. 2, converted into the Glore Psychiatric Museum in 1994"? Disregarding the surprising description, this is a photograph of a section of a cloth filled with sentences embroidered by a patient to communicate with the world. The big question is: is it art? If yes, then it would be protected by US copyright law, and consideration should be paid to the patient's right to publish the work. This has been argued at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloth embroidered by a schizophrenia sufferer.jpg and closed as kept. The 1st kept is invalid (the administrator obviously missed and failed to understand the reasoning of the nomination); the 2nd is a non-admin closing by an involved !voter. The only point is Infrogmation's contention that the section is "neither a copyrightable work of art nor is enough text visible to form a copyrightable work of words." I am not so certain that a photograph of a quarter of a page of Harry Potter would also be "not enough visible text" to be copyrightable, so I would say the copyright of this work can be contentious and a second discussion might be warranted.

The other images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles on neuroimaging and SC in PLoS One. They are free license and would be a good substitute for the fmri image.--Garrondo (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good example: PMID 20725639: An Event-Related fMRI Study of Phonological Verbal Working Memory in Schizophrenia.--Garrondo (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have finally added an fmri image from this study.--Garrondo (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the image of Bleuler from another one which the national library of medicine believes is in the PD.--Garrondo (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update

Malleus is mostly done with his copyedit, Cas and Doc James are looking at his prose queries, but I don't know who is going to deal with the images. Once the ce is done, I'll check wikilinking-- probably another week of work to go, but someone besides me needs to deal with images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point only lead image has problems. I have changed the other two to similar but surely free images.--Garrondo (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we get an update on this? It's been over two weeks since the last comment here. Should this be moved to FARC, or do the reviewers/editors think this should be kept without a FARC? Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
The criteria mentioned in the original nomination were focused mainly on comprehensiveness and referencing. Although much work has been done on the article, nothing has happened on the review page for over a month, despite a request for an update. Due to this I am moving the review into the FARC section, to hopefully get some new opinions and views. Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favor and tap my talk page when you do that. I was just browsing by chance today and noticed the gaping hole where schizophrenia and smoking should be an important facet of the article. Would love to be a part of this process. JoeSmack Talk 16:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I do what? The article has already been moved to the FARC section (hence the sectioning between "review commentary" (the FAR portion of the review) and "FARC commentary" (the FARC portion of the review). If you have comments regarding the article, please feel free to leave them here or on the article's talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great Joe feel free to jump in an improve the article further. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could we please get some comments here on whether the article needs more work or can be kept at this point? It has been over two weeks since this has been moved to FARC and there has been little activity... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of movement over the past month might demonstrate a lack of interest in the article. Since the article is still failing FA status I have no choice but to !vote it be demoted from FA status. Basket of Puppies 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote. I don't find the streamlining of the article an improvement. It moved the article in the direction of a psychiatrist's field guide or perhaps recovered patient leaflet. But that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Substantive foundational discussion on the validity of the concept as a distinct disease entity, and its relation to other mental disorders has been removed in favor a DSM-current-version synopsis. The genetic section tries to impress the reader with a few randomly selected papers to conclude that more is known about the origins that it really is. The box on Nash is a bogus presentation of the story; anyone that has read the book and not just watched the movie can tell you that. Add to that Psychological vs. Neurological causes split; hello mind-body dualism, still rampant in psych medical circles (I can give you citations for this, but I'm not writing an article here.) In the past I had tried to impress these concerns upon article regulars on talk there, but WP:1LAW. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I am happy to hear which bits you were unhappy about being lost (actually I can (2) agree that genetics section lacks a caveat or other comment about the meagreness of hard genetic material to work with and its complete lack of application to actual practice (3) I haven't read the book and didn't add the photo - happy to remove if the book is substantively different (4) Psychological vs. Neurological more reflects the disciplines that investigate these phenomena. How would you subclassify this section? (5) Erm, I looked at your posts, I couldn't tell which bits you were keen on adding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I should add that editing this type of article can be a bit of a pendulum - swinging to and fro.. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I don't have some pet peeve issue that I'm trying to "get even for" or force into the article. My overall view is that the article went from too much emphasis on research issues (probably because of who wrote it or at least structured it intially--a researcher in the field it seems) to too much emphasis on bookeeping aspects. Perhaps a comparative example would help. We are informed in excruciating detail of "Residual type: Where positive symptoms are present at a low intensity only. (DSM code 295.6/ICD code F20.5)" and similar. Do you really think that info is of general interest compared to, say, a sentence on whether current genetic tests have predictive power or not? (I'm bringing this one up because someone tried to add some biased info on a blood test to the article at some point.) I see that NIMH has a brochure on schizophrenia. Some idea of what topics are of general interest can probably be gleaned form there. (But that doesn't mean everything else is out.)
I for one enjoyed the previous incarnation of article because it was more of a science magazine article; it was more elaborate on what is known, what is not, and what is uncertain about schizophrenia. Whether an article is FA-quality or not has a large element of WP:ILIKEIT compared to deletion discussion and similar minimal-standards venues like DYK. It can be hard for a Wikipedia article to be all things to all men, e.g. we ended up with 4 (four) Boolean algebra articles (not counting the proper sub-articles); I've been keeping myself busy with fixing that for a while now. Undoubtedly, deciding what shoud be up-front is not easy in a vast topic.
--Tijfo098 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems that the DSM-5 workgroup has proposed to remove the subtypes, so they are probably useless even to specialists [8] [9] (By the way DSM-5 'rationale' page for any disorder--you have to click on it, there's no direct way to link that I know of--usually has up to date research reviews commissioned for the workgroup.) The proposed changes are certainly covered in news publications aimed at your profession. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are clouds about DSM 5. I knew about the ditching of subtypes, but you do see them discussed clinically. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, do we all agree that this article truly fails FA status and is in need of serious work to achieve that level in the future? Basket of Puppies 16:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concerns which brought this article to FAR have been addressed. Thus think we should keep it. I do not understand the concerns raised above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that problems have been addressed. Secondary sources are now used and many sections have been summarized. Keep.--Garrondo (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I think I'm being too prickly here. Although I liked the emphasis the article had before better, this is still one of the best articles on mental disorders in Wikipedia, even though it can still be improved without blowing up its size. And, BoP, I remotely sympathize with what you're saying, but the level of detail you want on the neurology aspects is not appropriate for the main article. I suggest you start a sub-article: Neurology of schizophrenia--there's at least one book, ISBN 0198525966, so plenty of material. Consider that the genetic section is about half the size of the neurology one, and there is a ton of research in that area as well. (In fact, my objection to the genetic section was that the selection of topics seems haphazard to an extent. It's largely cited from a rather obscure journal, Int. J. Drug Policy, and the paper is not a review of the genetics of schizophrenia either. Anyway, this can be fixed without much fuss. At least for the overlap with bipolar doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.109.073429 is a better cite (changed this one myself); someone clicking on the footnote should find a substantive discussion instead of an article about cannabis and schizophrenia.) Tijfo098 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reference consistency: current article use is ~84 {{vcite journal}} and ~12 {{cite journal}}, a couple of the latter are using last1/first1 authors rather than Diberri format. I assume it would be appropriate to move those 12 to {{vcite journal}} and Diberri format authors to use the majority style throughout. I'll do this in a couple of days unless anybody has a reason not to. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes! If anyone can do these, I'd be greatful as my time is limited but I might try to get to this later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the further reading section could use some attention; the choice of books there is a bit odd. Plenty of general books on it, e.g. ISBN 1405176970 (3rd ed.) -- added this myself -- that cover it much greater depth that it's possible in the wiki article. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally hate these sections due to the subjective and possibly somewhat nebulous way that texts are added. Do we really lose anything by deleting the section? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the section to the talk page of the article. --Garrondo (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a good solution. The MOS allows for it WP:FURTHER, and for a vast topic like this it seems warranted. If you remove that, why have any external links then? It's not that DMOZ might not have some nebulous information. I'd wager it's far more nebulous than a monograph whose chapters are authored by various authorities in their areas. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone please fix or clarify this: "A common side effect associated with schizo-affective patients, known as akathisia (mistaken for schizophrenic symptoms), was found to be associated with increased levels of norepinephrine." A side effect is normally associated with a medication (not patients), but presumably that is saying that schizo-affective patients are more likely to show it? Also, does it have anything to do with the previous sentence, which speaks of glutamatergic medication? If not it should be moved elsewhere. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good catch - the sentence incorrectly interprets source (the emphasis is all funny) - which is old age psychiatry anyway, and should be (and is already) mentioned in medication (side effects). akithisia is an extrapyramidal side effect, the latter being mentioned and bluelinked in the medication section. I've never heard any specific relevance of akithisia and schizoaffective disorder Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think there are more notable personal sources to add before this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments? Should this article be kept, or are further improvements still needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (sigh) I think for all the main/deal-breaker type points we can get consensus on, it is in keep territory. There was something I meant to look up which I have forgotten. I'll read over again but it is minor I recall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

edit
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 removed by Dana boomer 15:16, 26 May 2011 [10].

Cryptography

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computing, Ww, Mangojuice, Matt Crypto, Phr

I am nominating this featured article for review because...it does not meet WP:WIAFA in its current state. Though somewhat comprehensive, it is not well written (the lead is very poor), and it lacks citations in numerous sections. It fails 1a,1b,2a, and 2c.

The FA was passed in 2006...the standards have been raised since, so the article doesn't appear to meet our 2011 FA requirements.

I have not raised the issues on the talk page because it is inactive. Smallman12q (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate note - The notification must still be made, even if the page is inactive. I am placing this review on hold and making a notification on the talk page. If, after a week, there has been no response and no work has been done on the article, this review can be reopened. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note - After a talk-page notification and month-long wait, few edits have been made and no substantive work completed on the article. The FAR may now proceed as normal, with the time frame being determined from the time stamp on this comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some review/comments since nobody else seems to care:

  • Excessive history section for the ancient part, rather vague in modern part with some filler text. Also the claims about Arab inventions need to be checked against the source. There's an editor around here that's been pushing that everywhere, often with poor or no source. There's even a clean-up project for him.
  • The padlock icon discussion is downright silly.
  • Cryptographic hash functions and MACs are discussed as part of "Symmetric-key cryptography" but this is plain wrong, they are separate topics. See toc in a standard textbook e.g.
  • We're told that "Many have been thoroughly broken; see Category:Block ciphers", but the category has all the block ciphers. Is the reader expected to go through all of them to find examples?
  • Some references only partially support the text they're after. For example, the one after "In 1997, it finally became publicly known that asymmetric key cryptography..." doesn't fully verify that paragraph. (And that particular issue is somewhat contentious, so needs secondary refs to boot.)
  • Can't fathom why "Cryptographic primitives" is given as major topic of cryptanalysis. The cryptanalysis article toc has a more reasonable wp:weighting of the major areas/issues. Let me explain this a bit further. Although the distinction is perhaps less sharp than in other fields, the "pure" (which is hardly ever called this way) aka mathematical cryptography concerns itself with the primitives mostly, whereas applied cryptography deals mostly with protocols/schemes etc. that use those primitives. You can convince yourself of this with a google books search for the linked terms. (false alarm on this, see discussion below)
  • "Export controls" section has a lot of filler text.
  • There are several EU Copyright Directives, but the article fails to link to any (and I'm not sure which one is right because there's no citation).
  • Minor concerns about POV, e.g. "Some more 'theoretical' cryptosystems ..." (use of scare quotes) Towards the end, unattributed POV: "The United States Department of Justice and FBI have not enforced the DMCA as rigorously as had been feared by some, but the law, nonetheless, remains a controversial one." (Next citation doesn't verify this.)
  • The bibliography is rather weird. An overview article like this should have IMO a further reading section with monographs and textbooks annotated for the reader; see WP:FURTHER. (Even if this article were better, you can't possibly include the equivalent of a textbook in it.) The main problem with it is disorganization (needs subsections), and some entries refer to others (by comparison) that aren't even there, e.g. Scheneir's AP.
  • The lead diagram PNG should probably be replaced with a SVG, and observe the principle of alignment in graphic design.

Overall the article reads fairly amateurish. Hope this helps, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, prose, neutrality and coverage. Dana boomer (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be frank... Even though I think the article covers many aspects of cryptography digestable for a layman and does not contain any real misinformation, it is often fuzzy and neglects much of what "really" makes up modern cryptography – even though I'm not sure where the line between accessibility and comprehensiveness should be drawn. While I would have preferred to see the reader educated a bit about cryptography, at the same time I also tend to support demotion of the article. Unfortunately, my time/energy available to improve this article is pretty limited...
(@Tijfo098:) "Cryptographic primitives" is a subsection of "Modern cryptography", not "Cryptanalysis". Regarding your distinction between "pure" and "applied" mathematics, the former is concerned with both atomic primitives and schemes (and to some degree protocols). Provable security, which reduces the security of schemes to that of their underlying primitives, is a major aspect of modern "pure" cryptography.
While the article marginally mentions important aspects of modern cryptography such as the transition from (Shannon's) information-theoretically secure systems to the concept of computationally secure systems, the connections to complexity theory, the modern understandings of "security" (semantic security), attack models, etc., modern provable security etc., this should almost definitely be improved (even though I'm wary of where to draw the line between accessibility and comprehensiveness).
Curiously, the article does not have an Applications section at all. Other aspects of interest but not covered are Social aspects of cryptography.
It's not a bad article, but probably not good enough for FA. Nageh (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about me incorrectly observing that primitives was a sub-section of cryptanalysis in the article; it never was so--false alarm on that issue. On your other point, i.e. on the relation to computational complexity, I am aware of it in no small part because I have a friend whose PhD thesis was on a (subtopic) of that (his adviser was J. Katz :-) While it is certainly an important (research) topic, I don't know how much emphasis an overview article like this should put on it. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading our stub on provable security and the ELs from it, I see there has been an academic (mostly PR) spat over that. (Koblitz vs. Goldreich, Barak, Katz, Wigderson, etc.) So, I can see why you'd want to emphasize that in the main article, although you have to consider that the average Wikipedia reader arriving there probably understands cryptography at the level of the "padlock icon" :-) Telling them of some academic controversy is probably not going improve their knowledge much, so I suggest 1-2 paragraphs at the most on provable security in the main article. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, based on those letters, the "standard" name for "pure" cryptography is "Foundations of Cryptography". Perhaps the article should follow that convention. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'd like to see aspects of modern cryptography such as provable security emphasized because it really is what distinguishes it from classical trial-and-error cryptography. You will rarely find papers on cryptographic primitives accepted nowadays without some sort of security proofs. Don't be misguided by our poor stubs, which prefer to cover a PR spat (that it is) rather than to outline the real significance of provable security (and concrete security, in particular). Anyway, I am aware that too much coverage of this may be misplaced in a general article (especially after all the bashing at maths folks and the like that they do not aim for accessibility of articles).
Regarding your distinction between "pure" and "applied" cryptograpy, I'd rather call it "theoretical" and "practical". (At least, that's what I am familiar with, even though there is still some fuzziness in it.)
Concluding, there are several aspects in which the article could be improved. But I'd rather like to participate in discussion and help out improving the article rather than tackle it on my own, simply because bringing it up to FA status again takes lots of time. (Appreciation for all those who do work towards FAC.) Nageh (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that easily misguided, I've improved the provable security stub with a link to a paper that has substantive technical discussion (instead of mainly back-and-forth rhetoric). Tijfo098 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has been at FARC for over two weeks, with no comments on whether the article should be kept or delisted. Could we please get some thoughts on this subject? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nageh tends towards delisting above, even if he didn't bold that part of his statement. I tend to agree with him, the article is not terrible, but not great either, B class I would say. Let's see if any improvements are made following the promise below. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - There's still problems in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please extend FARC - Despite the fact that I believe the article needs significant work, I am inclined to believe that it deserves a further chance. I will put some comments on the article's talk page over the next day or so and see if there is any concensus on proposed changes. If there is concensus or there is no response I will go ahead and edit some sections. FrankFlanagan (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a user space draft of a new section on authentication User:FrankFlanagan/Authentication and a talk page draft of a re-write of the lead. I have got some talk page comments on these and sought to incorporate them. Nageh has indicated on the talk page that he will review these, hopefully in the next couple of days. I am reticent to make major amendments to an FA without some concensus.FrankFlanagan (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having obtained some feedback on my efforts I am now of the view that it will take me too long to get any susbtantial contribution into shape and withdraw my request that the FARC should be deferred. FrankFlanagan (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer two of the points above:

  • Arab cryptography: this article used to include a claim that the Arabs invented polyalphabetic ciphers. This extraordinary claim is not supported by the sources cited and I've removed it. The sources do support the content currently in the article concerning Arab cryptography.
  • Broken block ciphers: I've replaced the link to Category:Block ciphers with a link to a specific example of a block cipher that has been thoroughly broken.

Hut 8.5 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove This article is very sparsely referenced, including when it makes significant claims. This alone is sufficient for a remove opinion. Less importantly, and more specifically, it self-references Wikipedia. Including "(rhymes with "Italy")" in a caption strikes me as dumbing down. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 removed by Dana boomer 14:39, 10 May 2011 [11].

Anthony Michael Hall

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Nat91, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Comedy

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it no longer meets FA criteria 1(c) well-researched (Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate).

The article passed for FA in 2006 when the FAC process was fairly lenient. After a thorough read, I found it well-written but inadequately sourced. Many citations are present at the end of a paragraph, leaving preceding sentences practically unsourced. A sample of my concerns:

  • "Anthony Michael Hall was born in West Roxbury, a neighborhood in Boston, Massachusetts."
  • "Despite achieving only moderate success at the box office, the film made overnight stars of Ringwald and Hall."
  • "After a series of appearances in low-budget films and guest roles on TV series in the mid and late 1990s, he gained media attention once again in the 1999 Emmy-nominated TNT original movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, co-starring Noah Wyle as Apple Computer's Steve Jobs. Hall was widely praised for his portrayal of Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates."
  • "After making a cameo appearance as himself in the 2000 comedy film Happy Accidents, Hall appeared in several made-for-TV films. He starred opposite Sheryl Lee as a cheating husband in the 2001 USA Network cable movie Hitched. That same year, he played renowned music producer Robert "Mutt" Lange in VH1's original movie Hysteria: The Def Leppard Story and starred as legendary lefty baseball pitcher Whitey Ford in Billy Crystal's highly acclaimed HBO film, 61*."
  • "On the big screen, Hall took on supporting roles in the mystery-drama The Caveman's Valentine (2001) opposite Samuel L. Jackson, the critically-panned Freddy Got Fingered (2001) opposite Tom Green, and the action-comedy All About the Benjamins (2002) opposite Ice Cube."
  • "Hall also participated in Mind Freak's 10th episode of season 4."
  • "Hall is referenced in the "Homer to the Max" episode of The Simpsons, wherein Homer Simpson discovers that a television character shares his name. Marge compares it to an apparent past incident involving Hall, stating "it's just a coincidence, like that guy named Anthony Michael Hall that stole your car stereo", to which Bart replies "right, 'coincidence'"."

Additionally, many citations are retrieved from fansites, such as Hall's fansite anthonymichaelhall.net, John Hughes's fansite "Shermer, Illinois" and Hughes's tribute site http://www.riverblue.com/hughes/trivia1.html.

Based on the above-mentioned issues, I officially nominate this article for FAR.

--Artoasis (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Concerns mentioned in the review section focus mainly on the article not meeting the featured article criteria for referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2011 (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/archive/May_2011&oldid=434061031"