Wikipedia:Peer review/Schizophrenia/archive1
If anyone has ideas on improving this article, it would be a great help. Vacuum 18:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
- The article could use a healthy dose of heirarchical organization. There's a ton of good information, but the size and relatively flat heirarchy have caused it to become somewhat disorganized, which makes it difficult to navigate. Notice that there are fifteen main sections, each fairly large, but no subsections. The section on diagnosis, for example, effectively has three subsections: "modern diagnosis" "historical categorization" and "symptoms", though they aren't labelled as such. Formalizing those and/or a couple other subsections may help put a few of the paragraphs in an order that flows better.
- I think if it were subsectioned (maybe separately on paper first or in a sandbox), some further organizational options would become clear. Some bits may show a clear need for reorganization, e.g. if there are small mentions of "history of diagnosis" and "history of treatment" they could be moved to the main "history" section or even broken off into a separate page. Or maybe the social aspects (incidence, symptoms, etc.) vs. clinical aspects (diagnosis and treatment) vs. scientific aspects (causes and research) provide another route for reorganization or splitting into multiple pages. IdahoEv 05:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think this is an excellent article and contains a large amount of accurate information that is well-referenced, however I have a gripe about the excessive mentioning of the anti-psychiatry movement. One or two sentences would be enough since this is not mainstream and is a fringe idea. There is not much debate among almost all physicians (except a few) that Schizophrenia is a biologically-based disorder. 13 May 2005