Wikipedia:Peer review/Emergency psychiatry/archive1

Emergency psychiatry
Looking to get this article to FA status soon. Any comments on what can be improved to get the level would be appreciated. Thanks, Chupper 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Chupper. I don't have a full review to offer, but some random comments from a partial read:

It's a good general article, and good luck with your eventual FA nomination. –Outriggr § 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In Violent behavior I don't quite follow this sentence, or at least would be interested in a citation for it: "In addition, having a high intelligence quotient, high aspirations, or insight into illnesses can also be risk factors for violence."
 * ✅ Fixed sentence so it is more clear and added citation.
 * The Anxiety section seems like it should be lower on the page, given its emergent status in comparison with substance abuse, psychosis, etc.
 * ✅ Reordered sections.
 * More detail on the practice of emergency psychiatry might be good. What does it mean to "stabilize a patient", for example.
 * ✅ I've created a new treatment section which talks about hos a patient is stabilized. Chupper 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Page numbers would be/would have been nice for the textbook citations.
 * This is a good idea, but there were two reasons page numbers were not used. First, the APA style (the reference style used in this article) only uses page numbers where specific quotes are used.  Second, the references would have been listed multiple times, with different page numbers.  This may have been confusing.
 * There is an accepted wiki style for short book-page citations in a "Notes" section ("^Smith, 200.") and then a full book citation under "References". Anyway, it may be more important in an FA nomination, so that's why I brought it up. (And now that you've referenced my above request to Hillard and Zitek, I would actually have wanted to read that section in the book, but where would I start? :) –Outriggr ♠ 02:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sticking to APA format, and its my understanding Wikipedia is alright with that. I do use page numbers in journals, because specific articles are included within a certain area of the journal.  However for books, the APA style does not use page numbers except when using a direct quote.  Sorry, my professors have "conditioned" me into this strict usage.  I have, however, included a quotation for the information you requested.  Normally what I do in situations where something is cited (not quoted) using APA style is I grab the book and then look through the table of contents.  In this situation the sentence in question is located in the "Violence" section of the Wikipedia article.  If you open Emergency Psychiatry and look at the table of contents, you can notice a chapter called "The Potentially Violent Patient".  That chapter begins on page 75.  After reading just a few pages, you can find the content in question (it is located throughout page 76, but listed directly on page 77 of that book). Chupper 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What about mentioning drug treatment in a bit more detail—it's a medicated world.
 * I'm working on entering more information on treatment and medication. I'll notate here when I'm finished.
 * ✅ I've entered a decent amount of information about medication in the treatment section. Chupper 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this sentence: "The initiation of treatments for mood and anxiety disorders are important as patients suffering from anxiety disorders have a high risk of premature death." ("is" important) Premature death from what? Just general mortality?—if so "high" is a strong word here.
 * I'm not sure anybody knows exactly why or exactly from what. I am aware that statistics do show that the risk is elevated above a baseline.  The reference documents that.  I'll switch the word high to higher so that this is more clear. Chupper 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Making this small now if you don't mind!: I'm at two PR responses in a row in which my comments weren't acknowledged. Surely this must be related to that trope, "peer review is dead"? No shrubberies are required, just an ack or even a "that was painfully useless stuff", maybe. –Outriggr § 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Outriggr - as I mentioned on your talk page, your comments are appreciated. Sorry about the massive delay in response. I was hoping to address these issues pretty quickly, but things just got overwhelming for me in life outside Wikipedia.  I've already read through your comments, and I will do what I can to address each issue.  Of course any other reviews are welcomed as well.  I'm thinking I should be able to get to work within the next week or two maximum.  Thanks again, Chupper 13:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I sure didn't mean that you are obligated to act on these comments, but it's just nice to know they don't disappear into a void—seems a danger on Peer Review. –Outriggr ♠ 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)