Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narcissistic personality disorder/archive1

Narcissistic personality disorder
This article is a prime example of how a massive amount of edits 2 months ago can cause the fruition of a beautiful article with well cited sources as well as a well placed an appropriate public domain image. I feel this fulfills all the requirements to be a featured article. Thanks. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - While this isn't really an article filled with many, if any, disputed claims, having some inline citations would help for being able to verify the information, to prove that you aren't making things up and/or sneaky vandalism hasn't taken place. Fieari 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - I feel this article doesn't really give much insight into the condition beyond the fundamentals a lot of which are also covered by the DSM. Some more statistics or detailed commentary could really help the article. At the same time, I appreciate this article's concise nature and the fact that an encyclopedia article needn't discuss every possible aspect of a topic. That said, some specific comments on the article are:
 * DSM does not link to the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders".
 * DSM typically lists researched conditions. So maybe instead of "first appeared as a mental health diagnosis" you should try "was first listed in the third text revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual".
 * What is the source of Millman's comments on acquired situational narcissism? That said, generally the article might benefit from inline citations.
 * The prognosis section is overly brief - some statistics would be helpful.
 * The treatment section is very brief - is there really nothing more to be said?
 * "Compared to psychopaths, fewer narcissists are criminals" - some statistics would also be helpful.


 * Hope this helps.


 * Cedars 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Some of the writing needed tidying, and I got the impression of parts of it that it had been copied from somewhere. It doesn't go into any depth about the condition, and there are no inline citations, so it's impossble to tell what the sources are for the various points. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the article is on it's way to becoming suitable as a featured article, but it isn't there yet, it could be SO much better. I agree with all the objections above, all those things need work. In addition, I feel that the question reproducing of DSM criteria as part of the article (where is SHOULD be) needs resolving with the APA before it should be a featured article. --Zeraeph 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - no in-line footnotes (instead using external link in the middle of text), needs expansion and rewriting, especially first two sections. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The search term "megalomania" should not redirect to this article on "narcissistic personality disorder."

In redirecting megalomania to this page, There's a fundamental assumption that megalomania is a disease. However, that's far from undebated, and in fact steps right into the question of "what is a disorder, and what's just a personality trait?"

Megalomania, as the term has been used throughout history, has connoted a personality characteristic, arguably even a good one. There is a fine line to walk when classifying personality traits as "psychological disorders," and while narcissistic personality disorder may be an official one, I believe "megalomania" should redirect to it's own article, thus preserving the point of view that it is not necessarily a disease. The article should explain it as a characteristic rather than a disease, and could go into detail about great figures who are sometimes said to be "megalomaniacal," such as Alexander the Great.