Talk:Animal model of schizophrenia

Comments

• Schizophrenia is capitalized in the WP:LEAD unnecessarily
  •  Fixed. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Can the lead, with a sentence or two maybe, describe which species are the best models when, or if there is a significant gap/unidentified need in a certain area? This is an ignorant comment, I assume this knowledge exists.
• I think "models were the most widely used, these" should be "models, were the most widely used. These" in the lead
  •  Fixed. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Should it be "Pharmacological models manipulate" if they are still used? All that is said in the lead is just that the historical models were the most widely used, they could logically still be a minority of research.
  •  Fixed. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe we can get a sentence or less of what a schizophrenia lesion is so there is an accessible definition in the beginning of the article
  •  Fixed. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe we could also get some clarification for readers on the difference between a positive and a negative symptom
• I hope these are helpful so far. I limited my scrutiny to the lead, without looking at the body. Biosthmors (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

GA Review

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

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Main picture's source is dead

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Note: Hi Tomcat, and thanks for reviewing the article. Just to let you know that I won't be available to respond to your comments for about a week due to university exams this week and next. If you decide to put the review on hold to allow issues to be resolved, I hope you don't mind if it takes longer than expected to complete the review. I will be back actively editing on the 18th of December, and I may do some editing in between if I have time. Thank's again, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

---

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

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

• This is a topic with a large body of literature, and it seems odd that only 9 references were used. I have my doubts that this topic can be adequately summarized in the 1700 words currently comprising the article. Did none of these articles (all secondary sources (i.e. reviews), published since 2010, and therefore WP:MEDRS-compliant) have any relevant information?

PMID 22900207, PMID 22853787, PMID 22722532, PMID 22674524, PMID 22440232, PMID 22392187, PMID 22280432, PMID 22231804, PMID 22222697, PMID 22137438, PMID 22050853, PMID 21957171, PMID 21914480, PMID 21902534, PMID 21881218, PMID 21881217, PMID 21821099, PMID 21789475, PMID 21763200, PMID 21726569, PMID 21703648, PMID 21557953, PMID 21530550, PMID 21505116, PMID 21505115, PMID 21414329, PMID 21338658, PMID 21316923, PMID 21315745, PMID 21312409, PMID 21309772, PMID 21247514, PMID 21219876, PMID 21219191, PMID 21159151, PMID 21149852, PMID 21042002, PMID 20887784, PMID 20877280, PMID 20870929, PMID 20705091, PMID 20544314, PMID 20433908, PMID 20230889, PMID 20154202, PMID 20026558

• I also find it odd that a recent (2011), 290-page text by a leading authority in the field (Patricio O'Donnell; several of the reviews above are authored by him) was cited only once (no page #, by the way). Was there nothing in this book that could be used to help fill out this article?
  • On the O'Donnell book, I only have access to a number of pages via the Springer website. My university library does not provide full access. On the other sources, and comprehensiveness concerns, I will review the situation and have a response probably tomorrow. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Any updates on the sourcing front? Maybe failing for now would be best until the writer's had time to get through some of them. Wizardman 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not the reviewer, but I'd agree, especially as Quasihuman has been inactive since December 21. Sasata (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I left Quasihuman a message. I hope they are doing OK. They can always make edits to improve the article and then re-nominate. I encourage them to do so if they become active again. Biosthmors (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Closing per above. Wizardman 05:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)