Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the oldest nomination in its GAN grouping and it deserves a look-through.  03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Status = NOT PASSED

 * Starting review...  03:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Review stopped.
 * One confirmed plagiarism issue found and several others suspected.
 * Criticism section takes up nearly half the body of the article, a likely WP:UNDUE problem
 * Bayer source questionable
 * Uses of "claim" and other wording make for WP:POV problems
 * Large sections of text quoted directly from sources, and quoted in a way that modifies the original meaning
 * Also number of (relatively easy to correct) WP:MOS issues

I did not complete the review, as once I saw enough problems, I stopped, so there may also be further issues. This article still needs significant work before GA, starting with rooting out the plagiarism issues, and so it is not being listed for GA. 04:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS compliance

 * "current" is used several times, this time-dates the article and is a WP:WTW relative time reference problem, eliminate it and date the information appropriately
 * "claim" is WP:WTW, see WP:CLAIM
 * prose close-quotes should have the punctuation inside

General

 * Ran MadmanBot against the article, came up clean

Lead

 * "published by the American Psychiatric Association" should have commas before and after

Uses and definition

 * "hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies in the US also generally require a 'five axis' DSM diagnosis of all the patients treated" -- not all hospitals? is "psychiatric hospitals..." meant?
 * "The DSM, including DSM-IV, is a registered trademark belonging to the American Psychiatric Association (APA).[3][4]" -- work this info into the other paragraphs in this section so there isn't a single-sentence paragraph
 * consider switching the order of the top and bottom paragraphs here, it would make more sense to start with the fundamental definition before talking about how it's used
 * in the defintion, why is "and that" substituted with "[which]"? And "...death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.” was dropped off the end of that sentence and really can't be because it changes the original meaning in an important way.  This makes me suspicious that the "no definition adequately..." content also may be problematic.

History

 * The first official attempt was the 1840 census which used a single category, "idiocy/insanity". -- consider: The first official attempt was the 1840 census, which used a single category: "idiocy/insanity".
 * This was subsequently revised several times by APA over the years. APA, ... -- Doesn't "APA" need "the" in front of it?
 * The foreword to the DSM-I states the US Navy had itself made some minor revisions but "the Army established a much more sweeping revision, abandoning the basic outline of the Standard and attempting to express present day concepts of mental disturbance. This nomenclature eventually was adopted by all Armed Forces", and "assorted modifications of the Armed Forces nomenclature [were] introduced into many clinics and hospitals by psychiatrists returning from military duty." The Veterans Administration also adopted a slightly modified version of Medical 203. -- this is a large quote from a primary source, can it be paraphrased, also needs refs
 * In 1950 the --> In 1950, the
 * 46% replied, --> Per MOS a sentence shouldn't start with a digit, recast to avoid this
 * 'neurosis' (nervousness, 'egodystonic) --> extra quote? needs cleanup
 * It was quite similar to the DSM-I. --> "quite" sounds editorial here, consider dropping
 * The term "reaction" was dropped --> this is the first time "reaction" is mentioned, what is it and what is the significance of them dropping it?
 * "personality disorders did not experience emotional distress was discarded" is straight plagiarism out of the source and makes me very suspicious about possible plagiarism in the rest of the article
 * The whole Ronald Bayer description is right out of his own book, this source does not seem likely to be impartial to the events

Criticism
My first observation is that the Criticism section takes up nearly half the body of the article. Is that in line with what is found in reliable sources? I'm not coming into this article knowing a whole lot about the DSM but it is a bit surprising to me to find such a large Criticism section, can you please comment on this?


 * Excellent point. Parts of the criticism section are very well-written, with several citations to peer-reviewed journal articles, and adopt a balanced, neutral, encyclopeadic approach. Other sections read like an editorial and/or a clearly biased presentation of one side of a debate.  Mark D Worthen PsyD  09:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I notice that none of the cited criticisms of DSM V were written after publication in May of 2013, but instead focus on criticism that were written before its release. perhaps criticisms of the document should be focused on articles and citations that appear after final publication. It's not as if there are no critiques writeen in the four months it has been out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.112.1 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing


In this table:
 * Source lists the source as cited in the article
 * Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
 * Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content.   indicates the source was not spot-checked.
 * Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them