Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Digital media use and mental health/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2019 [1].

Digital media use and mental health

edit
Nominator(s): [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the complex, multifaceted, relationship between digital media use and mental health of its consumers and users. This has been in the media significantly since 2016 to a greater and greater extent, and there is a lot of confusion and misinformation amongst the public at large, in my experience - even moral panic. It is intended to be the main article of the category Digital media use and mental health. It intends to address history and terminiology, and then considers all the mental health views, following WP:MEDRS for medical claims. Problematic use has the most WP:DUE weight, followed by mental health benefits and the treatment of mental health problems with digital interventions. It then investigates other disciplinary perspectives, and the response of large technology firms. [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also linking to the GA review, Peer review and pre-FA nom comments.--[E.3][chat2][me] 06:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your substantial efforts in bringing this article, obviously an important one, to this stage. I am not a subject matter expert, but I know enough to know that this is a subject of much current research. As such it's a page that will require frequent and substantive updating, and is therefore exactly the sort of page that I, personally, would not bring to FAC, and I'm not sure that I'll be able to support, once I've read through it...Vanamonde (Talk) 10:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that that is necessarily a problem for FA. Such a topic will need periodic updates (say, once per year) but it's unlikely that it will require head-to-feet rewrites or daily updates which are generally much more difficult to manage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I hope by listing it as Level-5 vital importance, with the FA nom and subsequent, anticipated FA reviews probably yearly will allow the article to be continually updated at high quality. Many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Yes that may not be own work, I changed to an alternative, from the original image diff to new image diff. As to the lead image, my rationale is because there are many images previously used on related pages where people were illustrated likely without their permission. The series of images from Rawpixel Ltd. is appropriately licensed and shows probable paid actors that seem to be illustrating mobile phone usage +/- overusage. An alternative caption is "Smartphone usage may affect mental health", do you have another suggestion? Or do you suggest an alternative image? --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am presuming that we do have their permission being stock footage actors, and it seems intentional and therefore not derogatory to me. Other media organisations have used Rawpixel's stock footage in this way see here & here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Verification: spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Be consistent in formatting page ranges. Compare e.g. Ref 2 (225–232) with Ref 6 (652–7)
  • Ref 6: the publisher for Beales et al is Liverpool University Press ("Liverpool" is the location)
  • Ref 9: give the publisher (Wiley), not just the New York location
  • Ref 39: I'm probably being a little stuffy, but I'd prefer to see "Publishing" rather than "Pub"
  • Ref 43 (Hinduja & Patchin): here, you give location and publisher, elsewhere just the publisher. Publishers are required, locations are optional, but there needs to be consistency.
  • Ref 44: ISBN formats should be consistent (re hyphenation). 44 also lacks publisher
  • Ref 55: probably best to delete the doi, rather than record the link as "inactive"
  • Ref 59 lacking publisher
  • Ref 88: the publisher would appear to be Jana Partners LLC
  • Quality/reliability: the sources are mainly scholarly, and as far as I can see, appear to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

As this hasn't received any substantial prose review or support for promotion, it may need to be archived within the next week. In the mean time, it may be prudent to reach out to active editors in this topic area and ask for a review against WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I think this would be your first FA if successful, E.3 (correct me if I'm wrong) in which case we'd need someone to undertake a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing -- unless one was carried out and I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, yes it is my first FAC. @Homeostasis07: supported on sourcing and prose. Homeostasis07, can you please clarify whether this was a spot-check of sources? Thankyou very much. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Over the course of my prose review, I ended up reading all of references 4, 13, 50, 67, 73, 79, 80 and 93, as well as good portions of refs 9, 17, 20-1/21-1 ("Identifying commonalities..."), 20-5 ("Prevalence and Predictors of Video Game Addiction..."), 33, 34, 51 and 57. I was satisfied that the information derived from them was verifiable against each reference, accurately summarized/paraphrased, and didn't see any issues with regards to plagiarism. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi, I'm going to review this article against a few of the FA criteria; I'm asking that you give me up to 7 days to complete my review before making the decision to archive or promote this nomination. As someone who has been around the block 9 times (i.e., [2] [3]), I know it's a little disheartening when a nomination gets archived due to a lack of reviewer input. If there are any FA criteria in particular that haven't been adequately reviewed thus far, please let me know which they are sometime today and tomorrow so that I can focus on those. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.3: Sorry for my delayed follow-up; I'll begin my review shortly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: For the past 2 days, I've had no working laptop due to a broken AC adapter and was limited to using my phone to access Wikipedia; I wasn't actually 100% positive that my power problem was the adapter (as opposed to the power jack or a circuitry issue on my motherboard), so I waited until now to decide whether or not to cancel or continue my review. Fortunately, my problem was in fact my AC adapter, so I'll just need another 2 days to pick up where I left off (I'm assuming there's no urgent need to close nom this before then). Sorry for the delay. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for everyone's review and support so far! @FAC coordinators: please let me know, as this is my first FAC, if there is anything else I should be doing prior to the final consideration. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of recognition and consensus on the concepts used, diagnoses and treatments are difficult to standardise or develop, especially considering that "new media has been subject to such moral panic". - not thrilled about this sentence, espeically as the last segment comes over in a non-neutral tone in the context it is used on this page. Would be better being rephrased and de-quoted - maybe something like, "The lack of recognition and consensus on the concepts used renders diagnoses and treatments are difficult to standardise or develop. Heightened levels of anxiety around new media further obfuscate assessment of impact and management" ?
Done --[E.3][chat2][me] 23:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...characterized by virtual Internet sexual activity that causes serious .... - any reason why "internet" is capitalised here?
In American English "Internet" has traditionally been capitalized. However, Merriam-Webster notes: "In U.S. publications, the capitalized form Internet continues to be more common than internet, although the lowercase form is rapidly gaining more widespread use. In British publications, internet is now the more common form." American Heritage Dictionary lists "internet, also Internet". I reviewed Manual of Style/Capital letters; searched within the Manual of Style for "internet"; and searched Help for "manual of style internet", but did not find any specific Wikipedia guidance. I am in favor of "internet". Perhaps we should propose including a line or two about the word in the MOS and recommend using "internet" for articles in American English. I suspect most articles in BE, AU, NZ, and other forms of English already use the lower-case version, although I did not investigate.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Internet capitalisations occurred with the GOCE copy-edit. I prefer "internet", and per Markworthen's analysis this is NZ English, will change --[E.3][chat2][me] 23:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Social media addiction while excluded from the DSM-5 is under consideration as a mental disorder - ...by the DSM-5? This sentence is awkward as is

Overall I think it has improved with each review. I still get the feeling it is a bit "bitsy" but am aware this may be due to the nature of the body of evidence out there and not any fault as such of the article itself. Nothing else is really jumping out at me prose or comprehensiveness-wise but I will take another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "under consideration as a mental disorder" in DSM-5—that is a very good point. I revised the sentence (diff).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a tough one - I can't see any more prose issues and it seems pretty comprehensive. So is a tentative support from me though for some reason I can't put my finger on I don't feel wildly confident but maybe that is because of the patchiness of the research and hence no fault of the article. My thumbs-up is dependent on other thumbs-up (which it needs to be anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
Thankyou very kindly for all your help with this, a tentative thumbs up from yourself, a psychiatrist and a wiki expert for FA is much far than I thought it would ever get. You're right, the literature is inconclusive, and it makes the article "bitsy", I've been struggling with multiple layouts and the like the whole time, concluding this is the best it can be. My literature searches have been as robust as my skills allow (although not systematic). Thanks so much again. I've posted quite widely on the wikiprojects hoping for some more interested reviewers. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

I have done a little copy editing on the way, which you will want to check.

  • "However, concerns have arisen from researchers, clinicians and the public" How about 'However, concerns have been expressed by researchers, clinicians and the public'?
  • "different OECD nations had marked variations in childhood technology use" Could that specify whether the variation refers to types of technology, rates of usage, or both?
  • "recognised in the ICD-11" When an acronym is used, it should be given in full at first mention. (See my tweak to OECD.)
No. The MoS says do so "if helpful for readers", so if you think it isn't, leave it.
  • "the lack of well-established evidence or expert consensus" Should that be 'and of expert consensus'? (In fact that whole sentence is difficult to follow and could bear being relooked at.)
  • "in regard to its suitability as a separate psychiatric entity, or whether it is a manifestation of other psychiatric disorders" Are you setting up a dichotomy here? If so, could it be more clearly expressed as such? If not, ditto.
  • changed to "The utility of the term addiction in relation to overuse of digital media has been questioned, in regard to its suitability as separate, digitally mediated psychiatric entities, as opposed to manifestations of other psychiatric disorders." --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed to "The utility of the term addiction in relation to overuse of digital media has been questioned, in regard to its suitability to describe new, digitally mediated psychiatric categories, as opposed to overuse being a manifestation of other psychiatric disorders." Does that make sense? --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "careless use of the term may cause additional problems" I feel that this needs a 'such as ... ' or similar.
  • "Panova and Carbonell published a review in 2018 that specifically encouraged terminology of "problematic use" in regard to technology behaviours, rather than continuing research based on other behavioural addictions" It may be me, but having read this several times, I am unsure what it is trying to communicate.
  • "with some calling to delineate proposed disorders" Would that read better as 'with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated'?
  • "has caused difficulty with timely publishing of evidence-based guidelines, with experts from the fields of psychology and psychiatry calling for further study" Minor point: "with" twice; could one be replaced? More serious point: "further study" of what? (evidence-based guidelines?)
  • "with risk of depression developing at both the low and high ends" → 'with risk of depression developing increasing at both the low and high ends'?
  • "individuals of ages 14–24" Optional: "of ages" → 'aged'.

~*"the largest five social media platforms" Is this cited? I am not sure that it is accurate. Perhaps 'five large social media platforms'

  • "YouTube was the only platform with a net positive rating "based on the 14 health and wellbeing-related questions", followed by Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat, with Instagram having the lowest rating" This, to me, leaves it a little unclear that four platforms had net negative ratings; "a net positive rating ... followed by ... " could easily be taken to mean that those "follow[ing]" also had "a net positive rating", especially on the light of the following sentence.
  • "Twenge and colleagues" The preceding studies mention a date. Could this one? Similarly with "Ophir and colleagues".
  • "were correlated with depressive symptoms" "were" → 'was'.
  • "questioned the surveys' research methodology, such as" I would suggest "such as" → 'citing' or similar, unless there is a consensus that these concerns were well founded.
  • " "reconsidering the internet as an environment rather than as a tool, [... exploring] the internet's role in cognitive ecology, as well as the inadequacy of treating the internet as a tool and thus of the current internet-addiction model" " After several reads this has managed to communicate negative information. Can I (strongly) suggest replacing it with a (intelligible) paraphrase.
  • changed to "A different perspective in 2018 by Musetti and colleagues reappraised the internet in terms of its necessity and ubiquity in modern society, as a social environment, rather than a tool, thereby calling for the reformulation of the internet addiction model" --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suicidal ideation" should be linked at first mention.
  • "Similar modest increases" Is "modest" in the cite? An increase of 50% does not strike me as "modest".
  • "and one may argue to multitask less on digital media" Is this intended to communicate 'and one may argue that it is more effective to multitask less on digital media' or similar. As it stands it seems to have words missing.
  • "There is some limited evidence into the effectiveness of" "into" → 'of'.
  • "manage risk of harm online" → 'manage the risk of harm online'.
  • "high believers" Is there not a more felicitous term?
  • "They theorised that these same vulnerable groups" Assuming that "vulnerable groups" refers to "lower-income youths" then: 1. is this explicitly cited; 2. vulnerable to what; 3. could it be made clear that the use of "vulnerable groups" refers to "lower-income youths".
  • Vulnerable groups refers to vulnerable to mental illness. the lower income groups are already vulnerable to mental illness and then the risks are amplified by their higher use of digital media. Is it clearer here? --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It called for further study, identifying, "adolescence a tipping point in development for how social media can influence their self-concept and expectations of self and others" Again I am unclear what the report is calling for; again I would suggest a paraphrase rather than a quote.
  • "often findings in relation to behavioural addictions or digital media used in individual studies" Recommend 'relation to specific behavioural addictions'. (I read this three times, typed a complaint and then, belatedly, "got it".)
  • Gaps in quotes are sometimes shown as " ... " and sometimes as " [...] ". Standardise?
  • "small to moderate effects on mental health" "effects" → 'benefits'?
  • "but this would require validating evidence from future randomised controlled trials" This seems to beg an 'in order to ... '
  • Changed to "Smartphone applications have proliferated in many mental health domains, with "demonstrably effective" recommendations from one 2016 review encouraging cognitive behavioural therapy, addressing both anxiety and mood. The review, however called for randomised controlled trials to validate their recommendations." --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It admitted "heavy responsibilities" " Replace "It" with either 'He' or 'Facebook'.
  • "enabling users to set timers on application overuse" Should that be 'use', not "overuse"?

Some points from a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An exceedingly fine article, which I imagine I will be supporting. Ideally some of the content would be devolved out to sub-articles, but as these don't exist this article has had to work hard to cover everything; it has done a pretty good job of it. A passing thought is that the level of Wikilinking seemed low for such a technical article - I could be wrong on that, so don't worry if you disagree.
I am away for the weekend from a couple of hours time. I will still be on Wikipedia but may not get around to this FAC again until I am back. As all of the issues I have brought up so far have been satisfactorily addressed I suggest that Homeostasis07 carry out their prose review and I save my reread for when that is done and dusted? Is that OK? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Many kind thanks again, and for the kind comment. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second run through
edit

Again, some copy editing for you to check.

Lead:

  • "for some years" A bit vague for a FA. Is the actual year not known?
  • "recognises gaming disorder" Is that internet-gaming? If so, could you state it; if not, what is the relevance?
  • "Scientists, however, are unsure about the direct links between digital media use and mental health outcomes." "unsure about the direct links" seems a little 'hand wavey'. Could it be phrased a little more tightly?
  • "to try to reduce the risks of digital media use" Optional: Specify the risks which are being reduced.

History and terminology:

  • "Terminology used to refer to compulsive digital-media-use behaviours are" "Terminology" being singular, I think that "are" should be 'is'. A similar issue with "They" in the next sentence. Possibly use 'terminologies'?
  • "Gaming disorder has been recognised in the ICD-11" See second point under Lead, above.
  • "Different recommendations from the DSM and the ICD" "from" → 'in'.

Problematic use:

  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and Samaha of Notre Dame University – Louaize to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the digital platform used" This sentence doesn't really work. Shout if you disagree, or agree but would like suggestions as to how to rephrase.
  • This has gone through multiple rephrasings, tis difficult, especially in the DYK approved. I use Hawi and Samaha because they summarise succinctly with all of their refs. I'm basically saying, a point I've considered important since the start of my contributions in this sphere, that multiple experts are calling for delineating "internet addiction" as having subsets due to the gender difference. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Leave it. If it's good enough for Reidgreg it's good enough for me.
  • "prospective study designs going forward" I don't think that both "prospective" and "going forward" are needed.
  • "compared psychological benefits and problems of five large social media platforms" "of" → 'for'.
  • "new media" is used twice, without being defined. If it is a synonym for digital media, I suggest standardising on the latter.
  • Since digital media isn't quite a synonym except in the second use, I have defined in the first use
  • "and even some positive associations in terms of well-being" "even" seems PoV; is this, or a similar word or phrase, used in the source?
  • "and one may argue to multitask less on digital media to be more productive and efficient" This needs tweaking for sense/grammar.
  • Sorry, but still doesn't quite make sense. How about ending with 'it is possible to argue that it is inefficient to multitask on digital media'?
  • "as commented in a 2017 UNICEF Office of Research literature review" "commented" seems an odd word in context.
  • "A number of different methodologies of assessing pathological internet" "of" → for?
  • "gaming disorder" Internet-gaming disorder?
  • No "internet gaming disorder" is a subset of "gaming disorder" as the latter can be offline, now clearly stating that WHO uses gaming disorder, APA internet gaming disorder (although not officially approved by the latter). --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • "Medications have not been shown to be effective in randomised controlled trials" Optional: → 'In randomised controlled trials medications have not been shown to be effective'.

Mental health benefits:

  • "can develop social connections over social media, that develop a sense of" "develop" twice; possibly change one?

Other disciplines:

  • "a digital analyst, anthropologist and keynote speaker working in the field" Optional: → 'a digital analyst and anthropologist'.
  • "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more per day using digital devices, compared to higher-income youths. They theorised that these same groups" Does "these same groups" refer to lower-income youths, higher-income youths or both?
  • "that are already vulnerable to mental illness" Can a group be vulnerable to mental illness?

Digital technology use in mental health care:

  • "Digital media use in healthcare is unregulated in most countries" This seems a random sentence. I don't see how it links to the rest of the paragraph, the section, or even the article. Is there a missing fragment?
China
edit

Response of large technology firms:

  • I understood that some of the World's largest digital platforms are Chinese based. Earlier you say "China ... [has] treated digital dependence as a public health crisis". How, if at all, is this reflected in changes made by the platform providers?
  • I dont think the large China tech firms have been addressing publically, from a customary google search. The response from china has been mainly opening treatment centres, further discussed in the internet addiction linked article. --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • To me this is the only issue giving me pause about supporting is this one, criteria 1b, "it neglects no major facts or details". The article seems a little weak in this respect if it doesn't address, if only negatively, how these issues play out in China, a not insignificant proportion of digital media users.
Definitely understand the concern. I do not think WeChat or Weibo have released statements to assert they are mitigating risks of their platforms to date, however I cannot find a source to state this either, so that's not possible to include under the final section. I will now include this review when I delineate the large social media platforms, and also citing it whenever I state that excessive social media use is associated with mental illness. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand China's strategies don't seem to come from the tech firms but government regulation.. This is addressed in the see also articles under problematic use: internet addiction, Video gaming addiction, Online_gaming_in_China (through a double click from this article to get to). We dont have a section currently on government regulation because so far, the rest of the world hasn't been regulating. Facebook has invited regulation, and there has been one proposal from a US congressman in problematic social media use. I can add some Chinese content to that article too. Personally, I think that the sub articles should have that content unless it becomes a "response from the large technology firms", but to satisfy criteria 1b, the new review article is included. What do you think about that compromise or do you have other suggestions? --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the mention of WeChat you have added. Frankly, I would feel uncomfortable supporting if some mention were not made inline in the article of the online game anti-indulged system standard issued by the General Administration of Press and Publications. Or something similar. It seems to go straight to the topic of this article. I see no reason why it needs a separate section, nor why it needs to be lengthy. Perhaps retitle the last section "Platform provider and governmental responses"? And include a sentence or two?
It good Wikipedia style, I am prepared to be argued out of this, but I suspect that you agree with me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Retitled the section and I added new content. I'm a bit uncertain as to the reliability of this source in the article Online gaming in China, which was written after the publication of this (Permalink). I am unable to verify whether this proposal ever came into fruition in China. I have my doubts, considering more than a decade later they have proposed a similar thing. So I think its best to stick with the more recent information. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC) FYI I asked at Reliable sources noticeboard here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled the section and added China content summarised (sourcing thoughts above) --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Supporting. A top class article you have created. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Was a great review and a great process. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming from a question on a different board and just trying to find some sources here "Government Regulation of Online Game Addiction" from CAIS, Enmeshed in games with the government: Governmental policies and the development of the Chinese online game industry from Games and Culture, Policy and prevention approaches for disordered and hazardous gaming and Internet use: An international perspective from Prevention Science, and a few more possible hits from Google Scholar search on this area. --Masem (t) 14:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Masem:. I'm a bit worried about the first source because for claims it cites the poorly cited wiki article Online gaming in China. Will take a look at the others tomorrow. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated predominantly with the fantastic last ref, @Masem:. What do you think? also if you have time to comment/review the rest of the article would be most appreciated. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07

edit
  • I've just read the lead so far (where I couldn't see any problems, but I'll re-read after reviewing the rest of the prose). I believe this to be a very important topic, and I find the subject fascinating. It seems immaculately referenced (abundance of academic sources), so the prose should be a breeze to review. Should be able to post my initial review within 24 hours... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay. It's quite a large and dense article, so has taken me a bit longer than usual to get through. There are some very technical sentences that initially seem quite hard to digest on first read, so hopefully my review will be able to resolve such things. That being said, you've done a brilliant job so far of making the article as easy to understand as possible (for the lay person). For such a complicated and technological-based subject, it's (mostly) incredibly easy to follow. I agree with Gog the Mild above that there initially seems to be a lack of wikilinking on the article, but I found that many of the terms I was about to suggest linking were just redirects to the article itself, so that'd be pointless. It's clear this article is a stepping stone in the future creation of a massive series of articles. Kudos on your work so far. ;) Here are my suggestions so far:
Thanks for the kind comments. Yes its been a long time coming, hopefully this overview with all the sub articles and links leads to further expansion of sub articled down the track. --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


History and terminology

  • "A 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report noted the benefits of structured and limited internet use in children and adolescents for development and education, and that excessive digital media use is associated with mental illness." → "A 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report noted the benefits of structured and limited internet use in children and adolescents for developmental and educational purposes, but that excessive use can have a negative impact on mental well-being."
  • Link ICD-11 here; unlink same from 'Assessment and treatment' section.
  • "animal models" can be linked as animal model, or just animal model (which is a redirect. I personally prefer redirects, but I know others don't like them. I'll leave that up to you).
  • You could do with specifying who "Panova and Carbonell" are, because they come across as two random names that don't mean much to the average reader. How about something like: "Tayana Panova and Xavier Carbonell of Ramon Llull University"?
  • Done, but I changed to psychologists, and only using surnames.
  • population based → population-based?
  • Radeski and Christiaki, the 2019 editors of JAMA Paediatrics, published a review that investigated: there seems to be some inconsistency with how these two names are spelled throughout the article. All the sources identify the first as Radesky J or JS, and the second as Christakis D or DA; both academics have collaborated on several different reports, so I'm assuming these are all the same two people. However, the prose has different spellings of "Radesky"/"Radeski", and "Christakis"/"Christiakis". If it's as I suspect, the names should be corrected. If I'm mistaken, then please ignore. ;) Also, I believe JAMA Paediatrics should be italicised.

Problematic use

  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and colleagues to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the type of digital media used." → "This has led multiple experts cited by Nazir Hawi and his colleagues at the University of Notre Dame to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the type of digital media used." Also, the latter use of "digital media" is a bit repetitive. How about switching it up to "device" (since it wa explained in the previous section that this relates to the type of device used—problematic smartphone use, problematic internet use, etc.)
  • Changed to digital platform and Notre Dame University – Louaize --[E.3][chat2][me]

Mental health

  • "A 2016 technical report by Chassiakos, Radesky, and Christakis identified"... → Some names that don't mean much as they are (to me anyway). How about changing this to "A 2016 technical report which appeared in Pediatrics identified"...
  • "but these were outweighed by negative effects, including those on sleep, body image, and "fear of missing out"." → "but said that these were outweighed by the negative effects, specifically on sleep, body image, and "fear of missing out"."
  • "Twenge and colleagues published in 2018 two cross sectional surveys of 506,820 American high school students," → "A report published in Clinical Psychological Science in 2018 featured two cross-sectional surveys of 506,820 American high school students,
  • "They concluded that more time engaged with electronic device use," → "They concluded that more time engaged with electronic devices"
  • "However, Ophir and colleagues questioned in 2018 the survey's research methodology," → "However, a later report in the same publication questioned the survey's research methodology,"
  • "The relationship between bipolar disorder and technology use has been investigated in a singular survey of 84 participants. The survey found marked variations in technology use based on self-reported mood states. Matthews and colleagues then postulated that for patients with bipolar disorder, technology may be a "double-edged sword", with potential benefits and harms." → "The relationship between bipolar disorder and technology use has been investigated in a singular survey of 84 participants for Computers in Human Behavior. The survey found marked variations in technology use based on self-reported mood states. The authors of the report then postulated that for patients with bipolar disorder, technology may be a "double-edged sword", with potential benefits and harms."

Screen time

  • Couldn't find anything to complain about here.

Proposed diagnostic categories

  • Who are "Stein and Parashar"?

Online problem gambling, Cyberbullying, Media multitasking, Assessment and treatment and Mental health benefits

  • Nothing to complain about here, except the previously mentioned random linking of ICD-11 in 'Assessment'.

Digital anthropology

  • Link first instance of digital anthropology (first sentence, as opposed to the first sentence of 2nd paragraph).

Digital sociology

  • "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more time per day using digital devices, compared to higher income youths." → "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more per day using digital devices, compared to higher-income youths."

Gonna have to leave it there for the time being, @E.3: will continue soon. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Neuroscience

  • "Although brain imaging modalities are under study, often neuroscientific findings in individual studies of digital media use patterns, similar to other behavioural addictions, fail to be replicated in further studies, and as of 2017, the exact biological or neural processes that could lead to excessive digital media use are unknown." → This sentence reads pretty awkwardly. Something like "Although brain imaging modalities are under study, neuroscientific findings in individual studies often fail to be replicated in future studies, similar to other behavioural addictions; as of 2017, the exact biological or neural processes that could lead to excessive digital media use are unknown." might be easier to digest. But feel free to rephrase however you like, because you've done a better job of rewriting things so far than I have. ;)

Digital technology use in mental health care

  • Research of digital health interventions in young people is preliminary with a meta-review unable to draw firm conclusions because of problems in research methodology. → I feel like you're missing a comma between "preliminary" and "with".

Response of large technology firms

  • "However, journalists have questioned the functionality for users and for parents and companies' motivations for these interventions." → "However, journalists have questioned the functionality of these products for users and parents, as well as the companies' motivations for introducing them."

The last of my prose review. See no problem supporting this once these small points have been addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable

edit

As long as a couple of minor inaccuracies I've just corrected aren't re-inserted to the 'Digital mental health care' section, I tentatively support . Tentative mainly as I've not really participated in the FA process for about 10 years, and Im conscious some consultants would have different takes on the POV. Personally though I think the article provides a good NPOV reflection of the emerging literature in this complex field, & in picking out key regulatory & platform operator action. Great job! ( Disclosure: I made a few small contributions to the article back before it reached GA. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Was a great collaborative effort. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seppi333

edit

Since I was aware that E.3 intended to nominate this article at FAC prior to the nomination, I went ahead and made several revisions for compliance with [2] in mid-August (Re: Talk:Digital_media_use_and_mental_health#Input_from_Seppi333; my corresponding edits). I'll make another pass to make sure everything is still in order today or tomorrow. I intend to focus on WP:FA criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, and 2c, as well as general MOS compliance for criterion 2 in this review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to support, but since my deep dive into novel, notable, and/or significant topical intersections between mental health and digital media/technology – as well as the major details or key facts I might find in abstracts of papers about them – is still ongoing, my support is conditional upon not finding the article lacking w.r.t. a body of published literature. I expect this to take me at most 24 hours to complete since I essentially need to perform a number of filtered Pubmed searches to assess this. If I do not follow-up by that time with an indication of an area of deficiency, then I support promotion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion based upon the the criteria that I assessed below. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1
edit
1b – Comprehensiveness

See discussion section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any problems. Support on comprehensiveness. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1c – Well-researched

I expected to have more time available to review this article earlier than I actually will this week, so I'm going to forego a review of this criterion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1d – Neutral

I've already provided extensive input on several of the sub-article talk pages regarding the classification of several social media related disorders as "addictions"; moreover, since I've read a number of related review articles that discuss the nominal topic in the past while working on related topics, I'm familiar enough with the scientific consensus on this subject to make the determination that there aren't any NPOV issues in the article at present, at least with respect to the (mis)-classification of mental health disorders, mental health benefits, or the discussion of neuroscience in the article. Hence, I'm inclined to support on criterion 1d. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2
edit
2 – Overall MOS compliance

As stated at the top of my subsection, I already made a preliminary pass of edits to this article for MOS compliance in mid-August. I'll do another pass within the next 48 hours. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made a second pass with a number of revisions for common MOS issues. There may still be a few relatively minor inconsistencies with the MOS overall, but very few featured articles are actually fully MOS-compliant, so I'm satisfied with the current state. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2a – Article lead

The lead is 3 paragraphs, which per MOS:LEADLENGTH is appropriate given the length of the body. It covers all the major topics included in the article's body, so overall I think the article is compliant with 2a. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2b – Appropriate structure

The layout/sectioning of the article is hierarchical and broken down into appropriate subtopics with links to sub-articles. I'm inclined to support on criterion 2b. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2c – Consistent citations

I intend to go through and standardize the citation formatting for website, book, and journal citations. @Boghog: I know that you standardize journal formatting in articles fairly often and noticed you revised a few in these edits. In the event you formatted all the journal citations for consistency in those edits, please let me know so that I can focus my attention just on the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates; otherwise, I'll see about reformatting the rest. Thanks.

I think I standardized most of the authors in citations including {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} by using either |vauthors= or |name-list-format=vanc. I will go through them one more time. I generally used full journal names, not abbreviations. Boghog (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'll standardize the page ranges and journal abbreviations in the {{cite journal}} templates if I notice any inconsistencies in their formatting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boghog did a good job standardizing the citations. The only issues I could find involved page numbers and I only ended up making (IIRC) 3 actual corrections across all the refs (I changed |pages= to |page= in a number of places, but the citation template/module automatically reformats the output, so it wasn't necessary). In any event, I support on 2c now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
edit

Digital media use and mental health#Other disciplines – I'd suggest either deleting the uncited sentence immediately under this heading or citing the sentence and adding at least one more statement under that section heading. One-sentence paragraphs aren't ideal w.r.t. criterion 1a. I don't intend to review 1a, but that sentence would need to be cited either way.

When thinking about comprehensiveness, I asked myself "What's the most obscure and novel topical intersection of digital media platforms and mental health care or mental illness that I know?" My answer to that was computerized cognitive behavioural therapy, but that was already covered in the article. Kudos for covering that.

Since the evidence supporting the therapeutic efficacy is preliminary/limited and since many other uses currently constitute alternative medicine, I will leave it up to you as to whether or not you think this should be covered: [4] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/google-invests-mental-health-specialist-quartet-expand-machine-learning-team "Quartet sells what it described as a virtual environment for shared care planning that deploys algorithms to pinpoint patients with potential or unidentified mental health conditions and connect them to behavioral health specialists. The technology achieves that by binding together local mental health specialists and live psychiatry consults for providers with data-driven insights through adaptive learning algorithms and concierge-like support for patients." Basically, this company uses proprietary AI to identify patients with underlying/latent mental health conditions and, by coordinating with health insurance companies, connects them to in-network mental healthcare. Per their own website [5], they apparently also provide resources for computerized CBT.
There's a lot of news sources on this; IMO, this is definitely worth mentioning in the article since the use of AI (which is probably a deep neural network in this case) to identify individuals with mental health issues and connect them to psychiatric/psychological services is a rare instance of software technology (e.g., online CBT) finding a use in mental healthcare. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's very interesting! I included a brief mention in Industry and Government, because I can't find scholarly literature on it to warrant inclusion in the "Digital mental health care" section, which doesn't give me a specific reason to name that company other than one of Google's intiatives per se. What do you think? --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's far too new of a technology to adequately assess its efficacy for its intended purpose, so I actually had the Industry/Govt section in mind when I brought it up. In any event, that sounds good. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn

edit

As a random sample, I took a look at the start of the "Problematic use" section.

  • "Several studies have shown that women are more likely to overuse social media ..." cited to 6 sources, some of which are not WP:MEDRS - and PMID 27688739 as well as being primary is also in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal. This seems like an WP:OVERCITE or else orginal research; we are meant to be citing reviews not writing reviews. Suggest either find the one or two good sources which WP:VERIFY "Several studies have shown ..." and cite them, or the one or two sources which support the idea that women overuse more than man, and simply WP:ASSERT that information.
  • Understood. I'm not intentionally overciting here, I'm using Hawi as the secondary source, and I use all their citations. I'll remove them, use Hawi who say it clearest, and remove the other citations. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. These two sentences are the most difficult in the whole article, and I think this is a very important point, with extensive discussion in the DYK. I'll go through all the citations of Andreassen and the others that found this to see another reviewing it and stating this all together, but I'm not sure one exists, however the sex difference is repetitively found in all of the studies. What do you think of the current wording? --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording is good, but is there a strong source to support it? I think if so this should be cited to a single strong source; if none exists remove the content. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Hawi's notionally secondary content is sufficient rationale here to satisfy WP:MEDRS, but open to third opinion. They are reviewing the studies, drawing their conclusion before they embark on their own study, I'm not reviewing it. I removed their citations apart from the social media review citation, and I am looking for a video game citation to satisfy the request. The consensus for the reliability and suitability of this source was agreed and put on the front page in the DYK, see discussion.
  • I have included a very reliable source about males and video game overuse, that supports the other sources. I've still included Hawi at this stage, because their notional review said it clearest (ie. the least scholarly) for the encyclopaedia, to avoid WP:SYNTH and also keeping it accessible to the general reader. What do you think? --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and Samaha of Notre Dame University – Louaize ..." seems like a really odd form of expression. Of the three sources cited, PMID 26831456 appears to be the only strong (i.e. both recent & secondary) source, and it seems to be arguing the whole concept of "internet addiction" is hopelessly vague & overloaded. Ideally concepts should be re-cast around this source.
  • "Experts from the fields of psychology and psychiatry have called for further study, especially to establish whether causal relationships exist" seems just a wordy form of Further research is needed, as diccouraged by WP:MEDMOS. The source is an editorial anyway, which is not great. Suggest removing this.

Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/archive1&oldid=920957684"