Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3


 * 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.

Review commentary

 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I have notified editors talkpages and projects that seem concerned. Basket of Puppies  23:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * MRIs are used to diagnose schizophrenia. Basket of Puppies  03:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)


 * 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)
 * Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; delist or keep are not declared in the FAR phase. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Again, are you claiming that this article needs to be limited to clinical information only? Basket of Puppies  04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 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)


 * "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.
 * (Yes check.svg Earlypsychosis (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC))


 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * To be fair, at least one of the concerns was unrelated to the sources. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ), 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Alright. I am going to focus my time on the neurology section. Basket of Puppies  02:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 (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).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is bordering on the obscene. You tell me to go and improve the article but any edit I make is immediately reverted no matter how minor. Seriously? The accusation of OWN is justified. Basket of Puppies  02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OWN, clear consensus against you on talk, and refrain from edit warring. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've become interested in this review by way of Mechanisms of schizophrenia. I just read the discussion above, and realized some things where, hopefully, I can help shed a little light, and I'll try to explain those at Talk:Schizophrenia. I also want to note here that I've posted this comment about it at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting sections
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)

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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Ah, forgot! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I still need to focus on the bottom of the article (everything from History down). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Image concerns: The other images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Eugen Bleuler.jpg: '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.  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.
 * 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.  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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * A good example: : An Event-Related fMRI Study of Phonological Verbal Working Memory in Schizophrenia.--Garrondo (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have finally added an fmri image from this study.--Garrondo (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update
 * 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)

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)

FARC commentary

 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Great Joe feel free to jump in an improve the article further. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * (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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Also, it seems that the DSM-5 workgroup has proposed to remove the subtypes, so they are probably useless even to specialists  (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I have moved the section to the talk page of the article. --Garrondo (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Does anyone find The Eden Express even notable? I have the impression it is linked there to promote orthomolecular psychiatry. Besides MV self-diagnosed himself as bipolar later, and being a physician we could extend him some benefit of the doubt in that respect. It's probably best to leave it for the article on psychosis. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think there are more notable personal sources to add before this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * (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)


 * I've just had more friends at the university (who also specialize in schizophrenia) look over the article and we all agree it's terrible. At most it's a C-class article. I am not being sarcastic or using hyperbole. Basket of Puppies  13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After your participation on this page, I personally find it hard to take your comments without a grain of salt, but I will leave that up to the closer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You and they are free to come forwards with main stream review articles... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no problem coming up with that, see ISBN 0198525966, OUP 2004; the problem is BoP wants too much detail of that kind in this overview article. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the context of a general text on schizophrenia, e.g. ISBN 1405176970, that's 2-3 chapters out of 30. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is very clearly one of the best articles that wikipedia has on any mental disorder, and fully meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the substantive concerns have pretty much been addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Overall the article is fine. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Demote to C-class article, maybe B-class if the glaring errors and vast amounts of missing information can be filled in. Might be up for GA assessment after a few more months of work. Basket of Puppies  19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How much do you understand about article grading? Anything? Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree. I've already said that schizophrenia is my area of research- I spend day and night on it. This article represents the knowledge of schizophrenia from the mid-1990s, at best. The artice still introduces schizophrenia as a mental health problem, which is absolutely no longer the case. Much like Alzheimers would never be considered mental health, schizophrenia is the same. Each is due to very specific underlying brain pathologies, not abstract psychological issues. I realize I will not prevail in convincing my fellow editors that this article is in horrific shape and not at all worthy of the FA status, but it doesn't mean I won't be silent on the issue and civilly share my opinion. Basket of Puppies  20:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may say whatever you like, as often as you like, but it doesn't make you "right". What, if anything, do you understand about how articles are graded here on wikipedia? To me it seems like you understand nothing, and are just being disruptive. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I am disrupting nothing. I have said my part without any personal accusations (I count two against me) and will detach from this. Just be aware that universities as viewing this article as a testament as to why Wikipedia continues to be unreliable. Basket of Puppies  20:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't give me your AGF guff, it doesn't wash with me. I see what I see. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * " The artice still introduces schizophrenia as a mental health problem, which is absolutely no longer the case." - ???...erm, BoP, Have you ever visited or had contact any mental health services and seen how they work? Community health centres? Psychiatric wards, read mental health policy documents, etc. Are you aware of how much removed from reality that comment is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SZ may be treated by psychiatrists but the underlying issue is most certainly not an abstract psychological issue. That is quite clearly the scientific consensus. Basket of Puppies  21:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oen your eyes. Currently the clinical impact of all the gene testing, mapping and scanning and various neurobiological research - in all the thousands of patients, psychiatric wards and outpatient units is zero. What has helped is medication (a very imprecise art) and more psychological approachesCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute this in the slightest. Clinical treatment is done by psychiatrists. However, the underlying issue is neurological, not abstract psychological. Just like you cannot talk to someone out of a broken leg you cannot talk to someone out of being schizophrenic. Psychiatric medication does not end SZ nor does it prevent it. The "cure", if there ever is one, is to fix the underlying neurological pathologies. Don't you agree? Basket of Puppies  22:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike you I actually have worked in mental health institutions, as a psychologist. I'm not still learning the job though, as you and your university friends clearly are. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. I have an MA in Mental Health Counseling. I also have an MS in neurobiology and do SZ research full time. I am not "still learning", nor do I appreciate your second personal statement. Basket of Puppies  23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that if you're trying to impress me with a soft qualification in "mental health counselling" then you're in the wrong shop. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough with the appeal to authority, ok? I am off for the weekend. Shabbat Shalom.
 * I'm not the one claiming to be an authority on anything, that would be you Basket of Puppies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @BoP - when discussing chronic disease we talk of management, rehabilitation and improvement of function. One sees the range of responses. Yes, there are those who have intractable symptoms but, medication and the talking therapies benefit a great many people who are able hold down jobs and have relationships. I don't think we're going to get anywhere discussing this further here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then this article should be retitled "Treatment of Schizophrenia", as that is the model you are following. You must realize that treatment of a disease by a certain modality does not imply causation by the same. Schizophrenia is in the same category of Alzheimers. Each cause mental health issues but neither is a psychological issue, rather they are each neurological issues. I am curious why you are unwilling to accept this. Basket of Puppies  23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we should not rename it as it covers core/consensus material on history, causation, phenomenology and epidemiology. Wikipedia reflects common usage of terms and classification not pushes a new view. You need to drop this BoP. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that. Have a great weekend! :) Basket of Puppies  01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any errors (of commission rather than omission) left in the article? Tijfo098 (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We on the ground are still waiting for the ivory tower cures to come down to us :-) We need to keep this article real. There is no cure. There is some treatment. All this fancy stuff of genetic testing and fMRI is not used clinically at this point. What is proposed belongs in the section at the end on research if at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


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