Talk:Clinical psychology

Clinical psychology was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 21, 2012). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

	Clinical psychology was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed August 23, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Psychology B‑class Top‑importance

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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class High‑importance

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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

July - December 2006 January - May 2007 July 2007 - July 2008

Another talk page archive. Left the GA discussion because someone really should tackle that project. —Ash(talk) 02:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged for well over a month but still hasn't been cited, and still contains lists that amount to original research. Is anyone working on citing the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for almost six weeks, no response, delisted GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Text:

Unlike the PhD, which is a third level academic degree, the MSW is considered a professional degree (a second level university degree) and is sufficient for basic licensure in most states. < ref >http://www.aswb.org/lic_req.shtml< /ref >

After a cursory review of the site indicated in the original link source, the closest I found to matching this statement is the following:

Can I obtain a license with a non-social work degree?

With a few exceptions, no. There are a few states that offer “associate” type licenses for people without social work degrees (check requirements in the online comparison guide), but those exceptions are extremely limited. For the most part, you must have a degree in social work (BSW or MSW) to obtain a social work license. < ref >http://www.aswb.org/SWL/faqs.asp#NonSWDegree< /ref >

suggesting a full rewrite on this, with the new link source. --Vorik111 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "To date, medical psychologists may prescribe psychotropic medications in Guam, New Mexico, and Louisiana and military psychologists." mean? Is it meant to continue "... and military psychologists may prescribe <such-and-such>."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.27.39 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:DSM-IV-TR.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other texts from authors with a wider research and clinical experience than Plante. Introduction to Clinical Psychology (6th ed) by Nietzel, Bernstein, Kramer and Milich is one example. Ajoykt (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Plante reference is one out of 89 references in the reference list, so your section header about "all references" seems rather bizarre. Some of the other 88 references, such Compas & Gotlib, are cited more often than the Plante reference. Your attempt to remove a published reference to a widely used text by a reputable publisher (now in its 3rd edition) without a clearly stated reason seems odd. It seems especially interesting in view of your recent proposal that the author's biopage on WP be merged into a separate topic. If the Neitzel et al citation has added value beyone the Plante citation (which isn't necessarily the case - books by committee are sometimes hard to read), it can be cited in addition. -- Presearch (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit). Tobby72 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clinical psychology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaypoh (talk · contribs) 06:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Many citation needed tags.
• Why a whole one paragraph section for salary and employment information? Find references and merge into larger section. Or remove.
• Why a list of journals?
• List in Professional practice section, convert to prose

Sorry I have to fail this. Add references, address content problems, then nominate again.

--Kaypoh (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]