Talk:Animal model of schizophrenia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Main picture's source is dead

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Note: Hi Tomcat, and thanks for reviewing the article. Just to let you know that I won't be available to respond to your comments for about a week due to university exams this week and next. If you decide to put the review on hold to allow issues to be resolved, I hope you don't mind if it takes longer than expected to complete the review. I will be back actively editing on the 18th of December, and I may do some editing in between if I have time. Thank's again, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

---

• ", this comes from the discovery of increased L-DOPA decarboxylase levels in the brains of these patients." - you can not split main clauses by placing a comma; either convert it to a semicolon, or reword.
• Are only rats and mices used? If yes, why exactly.
• The language is tough but I guess it is ok for medicine articles. --Tomcat (7) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Both issues fixed now, I think. I would appreciate it if you could give an example or two of where the language could be improved (even if it's not an issue for the GA criteria). I'd like to make the article accessible to the general reader, while remaining precise and accurate (a difficult balance to strike for technical topics). Thanks again for the review. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sasata (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a topic with a large body of literature, and it seems odd that only 9 references were used. I have my doubts that this topic can be adequately addressed in the 1700 words currently comprising the article. Did none of these articles (all secondary sources (i.e. reviews), published since 2010, and therefore WP:MEDRS-compliant) have any relevant information?

PMID 22900207, PMID 22853787, PMID 22722532, PMID 22674524, PMID 22440232, PMID 22392187, PMID 22280432, PMID 22231804, PMID 22222697, PMID 22137438, PMID 22050853, PMID 21957171, PMID 21914480, PMID 21902534, PMID 21881218, PMID 21881217, PMID 21821099, PMID 21789475, PMID 21763200, PMID 21726569, PMID 21703648, PMID 21557953, PMID 21530550, PMID 21505116, PMID 21505115, PMID 21414329, PMID 21338658, PMID 21316923, PMID 21315745, PMID 21312409, PMID 21309772, PMID 21247514, PMID 21219876, PMID 21219191, PMID 21159151, PMID 21149852, PMID 21042002, PMID 20887784, PMID 20877280, PMID 20870929, PMID 20705091, PMID 20544314, PMID 20433908, PMID 20230889, PMID 20154202, PMID 20026558

• I also find it odd that a recent (2011), 290-page text by a leading authority in the field (Patricio O'Donnell; several of the reviews above are authored by him) was cited only once (no page #, by the way). Was there nothing in this book that could be used to help fill out this article?