Most of the last edit seems to belong to the talk page rather than in the article, so I have moved it so I can be discussed.

Broader context
Use of the term "psychoanalytic theory" implies that there is a core theory which is complete by itself.  This view is not common even among practicing analysts, who in large part recognise that the mind is a function of the brain, so that any full theory of the psyche needs to refer to the brain.  An excellent review of this is Kandel ER (1999) "Biology and the future of psychoanalysis", Am.J.Psychiat 156:505.

Psychoanalytic thinking is inseparably bound also to clinical treatment of patients.  Some purists claim that achieving insight is the only goal of psychoanalysis; but health insurers generally require more concrete goals such as reduced mental illness or increased time at work.  Both of these clinical perspectives assume that the effect on actual patients is important  so they should be included in this article.  An excellent review of the clinical benefits of psychoanalysis is Fonagy, Roth & Higgitt (2005), Bull.Menninger Clinic 69(1):1-58.

This article would not be complete without consideration of substantial attacks on psychoanalysis and its theory, which have reshaped psychiatric practice in the UK and USA over the past 20-30 years.  These attacks can be classified as empirical (Gabbard, Gunderson & Fonagy 2002); financial (Detre & McDonald 1997); theoretical (Meehl 1998 calculates that there are many psychoanalytical explanations possible for any single clinical problem); and circumstantial (e.g. past failures with respect to homosexuality and childhood abuse, and the antipathy of many analysts to quantitative research:  Gabbard, Gunderson & Fonagy 2002).

Psychoanalytic theorists may have over-reached themselves in attempting to account for all troublesome psychic phenomena.  However, their concerted efforts to address more circumscribed areas have produced widely acknowledged, influential advances in the areas of defense mechanisms, attachment, the unconscious, transference and counter-transference, and the treatment of borderline personalities, among others.  Each of these advances has been accompanied by individual theories.

Suggestions for the peer-review
The article should not require a paragraph to describe what it is about; instead, its scope should simply be theories to do with psychoanalysis.  It should include subsections on the question of whether (and how) psychoanalysis can be studied objectively, whether it is disproveable in whole or part (and whether this matters), the informal "theory" of the manners in which analysis can be conducted (e.g. bare room unlike Freud; methods of interpretation), and the relationships with behavioural, cognitive, and psychiatric theories.  It would be useful to have an explanation of why psychoanalysis has resisted decline so much more successfully in France than in anglophone countries.  Rather than complicated sentences with complicated words, we should be treated to simple descriptions of the differences between Freudian, Jungian, and Adlerian thinking.  Possibly in lists if that helps to simplify the sentences.