Template:Vital article

	Major depressive disorder is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 31, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted April 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 6, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted June 23, 2009 Today's featured article Main Page Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Psychology High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology Death: Suicide Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as High-importance). Women's Health High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women's health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Disability Major depressive disorder is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Template:WP1.0

Template:Annual readership

User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) and User:Ian (Wiki Ed), this Featured article has been tagged by four different student editing courses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie, never mind; I see the issue was only the recent bot edits, that made old courses appear to be current because of the date the bot ran. Nothing to see here; sorry for the ping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the ping. Four courses tagging this at once would be bad. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber and Cosmic Latte: multiple problems have been introduced in recent edits:

• DSM-5 etc are acronyms, not books; they should not be italicized. Since removing all of those italics will require considerable work, I hope Cosmic Latte will do it.
• Long ref names are unhelpful on refs that aren't reused; they just clog up the text.
• There is no reason to add new text that is cited to very old sources; if the text is still relevant, more recent reviews will have covered it.
• Some UNDUE text and sources not suitable for a Featured article are being added, samples: [1] [2]

I haven't checked everything, but this is enough to mean more scrutiny is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should also be examined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on SandyGeorgia's user talk before I noticed her post here. Anyway, for the record, this is what I said: "Hi, I see that you removed my sentence about Aaron Beck from major depressive disorder, calling it "undue and poorly sourced". I would argue that Beck's contribution to the understanding of MDD is certainly due somewhere in the article, considering that Beck is regarded as the father of the most prominent treatment for it (cognitive behavioral therapy). I'm wondering if you felt that doesn't quite belong in the "Cause" section, though? That Beck's cognitive triad may be more effect than cause, more of a description than an explanation? I'm open to disagreement and/or compromise, but I would argue that it does indeed belong in that section, due to the cognitive-behavioral premise that cognition precedes emotion. I agree with you, though, that the source I borrowed from the cognitive-triad article is not the best, especially for a former featured article, so would you be open to the re-inclusion of the material if attributed to a more reliable source? Again, I would argue that Beck, as the father of CBT, holds more due weight than perhaps anyone else in this article." Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a featured article, and the source provided for Beck's triad would not be adequate even if the article was not featured. If the content belongs here, it should be cited to a WP:MEDRS source, and one that is recent and high quality, as this is a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the italics, and I'll look for a featured article-worthy source for Beck. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(groan) ...ok, looking soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, if you are up for the work, I am willing to help make sure this is still at FA standards, but I can't do that alone, and would rather submit it to FAR unless there is a sustained commitment to restoration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored an older version here, removing the very old non-MEDRS sources used; if there is a link between creativity and depression, I am not finding it in MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDORDER suggests separate sections at the bottom for special populations, such as geriatrics or pregnancy or children. At Tourette syndrome, I found it more useful to work Pregnancy in to the Management section. Whatever is decided here, the article is currently inconsistent in its treatment of special populations. Pregnancy and children are spread throughout (my preference), while the elderly are in a separate section at the bottom. I suspect that happened because it was all added by one editor (and cited to one less than FA-standard source, now old).[3]

Do we want to merge the elderly content in to the body of the article, in the appropriate sections, or move all info relative to pregnancy and children to separate sections, as is done with elderly ? I am indifferent, but the article should be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects, I'm thinking about adding a line or two about ketamine treatment for MDD to the "Other medications and supplements" subsection of "Management". I've got no less than three MEDRS sources (here, here, and--with its finding of a "large and statistically significant effect of ketamine on depressive symptoms"--here) saying that ketamine is effective at treating MDD specifically, as opposed to BPD. Any thoughts? Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:MEDDATE? It is not only generally useful, but Featured article must use the highest quality and most recent sources. How are you going about finding such old sources? The three you propose are seven to eight years old, when there is PLENTY of new material. Here, for example, are three more recent MEDRS-compliant sources:

• Corriger A, Pickering G (2019). "Ketamine and depression: a narrative review". Drug Des Devel Ther. 13: 3051–3067. doi:10.2147/DDDT.S221437. PMC 6717708. PMID 31695324.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Singh I, Morgan C, Curran V, Nutt D, Schlag A, McShane R (May 2017). "Ketamine treatment for depression: opportunities for clinical innovation and ethical foresight". Lancet Psychiatry. 4 (5): 419–426. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30102-5. PMID 28395988.
• McIntyre RS, Rosenblat JD, Nemeroff CB, et al. (May 2021). "Synthesizing the Evidence for Ketamine and Esketamine in Treatment-Resistant Depression: An International Expert Opinion on the Available Evidence and Implementation". Am J Psychiatry. 178 (5): 383–399. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20081251. PMID 33726522.

Considering the ethical implications, it would be wise to first propose text based on those sources here on talk.

If you are unfamiliar with how to find more recent reviews, there is a template at the top of this talk page ({{Reliable sources for medical articles}}) which helps. This is a bit dated, but is also helpful. You can also format your citations to match the citation style of this article by using this tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After graduating from university and losing my student access to a lot of databases, I sort of defaulted to Google Scholar for general research, and to PubMed for medical searches, although I relied on the former to find the articles on ketamine. Thank you for the sources, template, and tool. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]