Satanic ritual abuse edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because now that an agonic and extremely long edit war is finally over (with the main contributors burned out), 3rd opinion is desirable as to how to improve the page.
Thanks, —Cesar Tort 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Casliber edit
- Oh great, another controversial article, but seriously I am placing this as a placeholder and will add notes as I go. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Generally, articles of this size would have a rather substantial lead of 2 or 3 paras. I'd add a line on the most notable cases and media portrayals for starters. I will think of more as I go.
- I know some other people (psychiatrists) more experienced in the field than me here in oz and may ask them.
- I am not a fan of seealso sections at the bottom with a list of pages with varying levels of connectivity. I prefer the:
{{seealso|xx}} or {{main|xx}}
- under the appropriate subheadings in the body of the article to give it context, or otherwise just be satisfied with a bluelink (I have found some articles where one is needed, mainly astronomical, but pretty rare). Do we assume everyone can CTRL-F these days? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the DID section, this is where it gets really tricky but I suspect someone must have written a treatise on it somewhere. As it stands, the section is descriptive, but I wonder whether a more of a psychological synthesis on trauma is needed --> traumatic memories are often intense, intermittent and do not follow a chronological flow, and may be misinterpreted. However, diagnoses like DID, BPD and (obviously) PTSD are highly correlated with early trauma as well. I have only skimmed it and need to read it in more depth. Gotta run.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Carcharoth edit
- No time for any substantial comments, I'm afraid, but from a brief glance I see the following problems:
- (1) Lead is not long enough or comprehensive enough (but this is best tackled after the rest of the article has been improved).
- (2) Contents list is fairly long, probably too long. This may indicate that more summary-style presentation is needed, with broader, more general section headings and details in subsidiary articles, but it might also be indicative of an article with lots of short, stubby sections, where section headers have been used instead of paragraphs.
- (3) In general, the sections are too short and stubby. Have a look at some featured articles to get an idea of what an article with longer sections and paragraphs looks like.
- (4) Are there any non-controversial pictures that can be used?
- That's about it for now. Hope others have time to comment in more detail. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)