Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clinical depression/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.
Clinical depression[edit]
Nomination & Support --Shines8 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid to say, nowhere near FA calibre. The presence of article-improvement templates and the recentish GA delisting should be signs that an FA nomination is unlikely to succeed. Areas of improvement for the article :
- Many of the sections are single-paragraphs stubs where considerably more can be said
- Significantly more inline citation is required
- A number of sub-sections are basically POV and uncited: for instance, the more controversial of the suggested treatments will require balanced accounts.
- Two sections are long lists. I think the 'symptoms' section justifies a list (even a long one): this seems to be the standard presentation of clinical symptoms (other users may disagree). However, the causes section needs to be written in prose.
I suggest this nomination is struck, these issues addressed, and it's submitted for GA and then peer review before renominating it here. Regards, The Land 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: because of the importance of the topic, let's have an expert review the article first. until then, I propose that it be submitted for GA review. 69.140.155.148 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is too much work to be done on this article for listing it as FA. Many sentences need citations; entire sections have no inline citations whatsoever. It definitely needs expert review to bring it up to GA- or FA-level. Aleta 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The prose is not good - it is listy in places, too short of sub-sections in others. The number of citations are getting better, but I wonder if too many of them are from online sources rather than more reliable print references. I would suggest de-listing it here and getting a peer review, then working toward GA status. Those steps would help you get more input on getting this article toward FA-status. -- Pastordavid 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The overwhelming TOC is the first clue that the article needs further work. I suggest reviewing WP:MEDMOS as a means of organizing the sections better. The article doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT; books should be either in References or Further reading, and See also is overwhelming and should be minimized by incorporating articles into the text where appropriate. Sources are not formatted correctly, and aren't the highest quality sources which should be used for a medical article (refer to Tourette syndrome for an example of how to cite PubMed articles, and a clean TOC following MEDMOS and see the infobox on my userpage for a PMID template converter which will provide a citation for any PMID number). This article really could benefit from an extended stay at WP:PR, followed by an application for GA, followed by another extended peer review, before approaching FAC. Good luck; there are very few people on Wiki to help on psych-related articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.