Talk:Syndrome of subjective doubles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syndrome of subjective doubles article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

I am a university student and I have been researching this topic, as I am very interested in neurology and psychological disorders. I plan to use this information to expand upon this page. Please let me know if you have any feedback. Thank you! Emily Croft (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major additions to the article

Today I added the article that I have been working on for the last few weeks. I added most of the sentences from the stub into the article, with the exception of those which I could not find sources for. Some sentences have been reworded to flow better with the rest of the article. The following topics from the stub were taken out:

The stub claimed that the syndrome is "also referred to as syndrome of Christodoulou." While I did see this in some informal blogs around the internet, I did not see it called this in any papers or books that I found. If a source if found, please add it.
The stub also stated: "Sometimes the delusion takes the form of a conviction that whole or part of the patient's personality has been transferred into another person. In this case depersonalization may be a symptom. One example from medical literature[citation needed] is of a man who became depersonalized after an operation and was convinced his brain had been placed into someone else's head. He later claimed he recognized this person." While I did see similarities to this delusion (and covered the description in symptoms), I could not find this specific example in literature. It would be an interesting read, so if the source is found, please let me know.

Thank you for any feedback. Emily Croft (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS

Hi - please read over WP:MEDRS. This article has a lot of sourcing problems. I'm sorry if your instructor didn't go over our medical sourcing standards, but Wikipedia doesn't allow the use of primary sources etc in articles about medicine, and greatly prefers the use of review articles published in the last decade unless no such sources are available. For now, I've reverted your contributions, and would encourage you to work in your sandbox until the WP:MEDRS problems are ironed out. I hate to do this since I see you've put a tremendous amount of work in to it, but we have strict sourcing standards for medical articles that your version didn't meet. Since a lot of other students (almost all) in your class have similar problems with their articles, I'll also be dropping your professor a general note. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep working on it. The problem is that this topic hasn't really been touched on in much recent literature. I'll try to look for some different sources. Emily Croft (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am getting ready to transfer the article out of my sandbox once again. I have gone through all of my secondary sources and used them to replace all of the primary sources that I could. I also did some additional searching, and I looked at every review article on the subject that I could find and that I had access to. I realize that some of my sources are not within the last decade, however, I believe that this topic falls under the exception for up-to-date information stated on WP:MEDRS. It appears that little progress is being made in research on this syndrome specifically, as it is not as common as the other delusional misidentification syndromes.

I also realize that I used case reports, which typically are not reliable sources by wikipedia's standards. However, this syndrome does not have a defined list of symptoms, and I feel that the case reports allow the reader to get a better idea of the types of cases that are reported. Additionally, many of the other delusional misidentification syndromes (Capgras delusion, Fregoli delusion, Cotard delusion, and Reduplicative paramnesia) all use case reports. I was careful not to give any undue weight to information that was not emphasized in secondary sources, and I was also careful not to include any original research.

I believe I have followed the guide and hope that my edits now make my article up to par. Thank you for your time, Emily Croft (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1

There are a some misspelled words, and a couple possible grammar errors, but nothing too major

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_____________________
Total: 19/20
General Comments: Very good article. I would suggest looking it over a couple times to check for minor errors, and just make sure that sourcing errors are fixed.
Mcorrin3 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2
very well researched and the topic is easily understood because of her ability to explain complexities simply
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
extremely well-written and understandable, with links to other Wikis when a topic/vocab term might be difficult to understand otherwise
4. Refs:2
went back and added multiple citations where appropriate to help better stay within the Wiki requirements; >10 references makes it excellent
5. Links: 2
many links to other pages and not cited as being an orphan
6. Responsive to comments: 2
not only did she respond to comments about lack of citations, but she also quickly edited article to include the references necessary
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total: 20/20

Katie Cottrell (talk) 9:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_____________________
Total: 20/20
NiayeshRahimiCortese (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]