Wikipedia:Peer review/Body image disturbance/archive3

Body image disturbance

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to improve for featured article nominee Thanks, Srobodao84 (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Urve

Hi, please ping within a couple days if I do not start offering some comments. I think this is in a good state. One initial thing I spot is inconsistency in citation style - you can install User:BrandonXLF/CitationStyleMarker and see whether a specific cite is in CS1 or CS2; the article mostly has CS1 with a few exceptions. Urve (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Urve and Srobodao84: To tag on to this comment, when I did my GA review I didn't notice this issue but one thing I did notice was that the medical citations aren't using Vancouver system to list the authors, as recommended by WP:CITEMED, part of MOS:MED. I still passed the article because I didn't think this was a big deal, but if it's going for FA review this should probably be fixed. One reason it's recommended is because it's easy to see in the article that some citations only have the first initials of authors, common in medical journals, but others don't, leading to inconsistent citation style. Omitting the author first names even when known fixes that. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto So do you suggest deleting the authors' names from all citations? Srobodao84 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Srobodao84: Just the author's first name. So, e.g. Jones, Bob; Garfield, Tony John would become Jones B, Garfield TJ in Vancouver style. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto Ok, I'll do it by October 4th, the day it comes out as DYK. Srobodao84 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Urve how can i change CS2 in CS1? Srobodao84 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Help:Citation Style 1 and Help:Citation Style 2 will be good pointers. Essentially, CS2 is any template that takes in {{citation}} while CS1 are things like {{cite web}}. If you are going to change to Vancouver style, then see Help:Citation Style Vancouver; the essential change, in my understanding, is making things like {{cite journal}} into {{vcite journal}} - note the v. Urve (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto i've change all the reference as u suggests. Tell me if now its correct cause i dont understand if now its correct according to Vancouver system. I changed all the quotes with just one change. So, just in case, I can go back to the previous version faster.

@Urve I'm struggling to figure out how to change the few CS2 quotes and put them as CS1. Any suggestions? Srobodao84 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto @Urve nevermind, i found the way. All references are in vancouver system now Srobodao84 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As for some comments I have:

• I think the first sentence should explain what the symptom is, rather than just stating it is a symptom. For example, "BID is a common symptom of eating disorders, where one has an altered perception of their own body" - the exact wording isn't the point, just that it would be helpful to say what it is rather than what it belongs to
• Be careful when you are citing primary research vs. literature reviews or systematic reviews. Our guidance on the use of sources for medical information suggests that we only use these latter ones, because primary research - even if peer reviewed - can be non-replicable, novel, or not indicative of the actual landscape of research at the time. For instance, we cite this article in the lead - but it is not about the general idea of multisensory integration, but a specific kind of it. Note where it says: "This is striking, as literature shows that body image disturbance in AN also expresses itself through ... multisensory integration" -- that's a bit different! So some caution is desirable here.
• The phenomena of altered perception have always intrigued and fascinated humankind - is this necessary?
• However, it is only with modern medicine that the systematic study of bodily experience has become of scientific interest - is this supported by the reference in the following sentence?
• There is some unreferenced material throughout the article; However, the German-American psychiatrist Hilde Bruch was the first physician to describe body image disturbance in eating disorders accurately -- Body image disturbance is a multifaceted construct including both perceptual and attitudinal issues. Some of the more common signs are: -- first paragraph of epidemiology
• We use the last name of some authors here, but we don't indicate who they are or why we are using their perspective. For instance, when we say, As early as 1993, Spitzer compared obese individuals with and without binge eating disorder, we have to ask: Who is Spitzer, and why does it matter what they say? If they are a psychiatrist or a researcher, that is valuable information we should attend to providing our readers.
• All of these components are altered in body image disturbance - Are they all altered for every person with BID, or are they all apparent across the group of people with BID? The distinction being, if one person has BID, do they necessarily have altered components - or is it that BID can manifest itself as altering all? This ambiguity can be important.
• Much of the Treatments section is primary research; is there some meta review that takes these into consideration? If not, should it be included here?

Can return for some comments later. Urve (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Urve Thank you very much for your comments. I'll try to reply you by points.

1) Good point! You are right, in the first sentence it should also be explained by what characterizes the disorder. I will change it

2) Yes, those articles refer to new body image treatments within a multisensory integration framework. "Multisensory integration" is linked with a wikilink to the specific page. But if you find it useful, I can mention some reviews on the subject of multisensory integration in general.Finally, the literature cited refers to new treatments, not new medical-specific information. It defines the current landscape of the development of BID therapies. Which is new and whose limitations are clearly expressed when it is said that independent studies have not yet replicated the efficacy studies. But the information is:

- treatments for the BID have been developed over the years (on emotional-cognitive components)

- they were on low-medium effective

- new therapies also focus on the perceptual component

- the results are encouraging but not yet replicated

3) its not. We can remove it. it's just an introductory sentence

4) You're right. I'm going to look for some quotes.

5) For modern authors, are you sure you need to add more information? They are authors who have published review articles on the literature. It is not important who they are, but what data they have produced (that's why they are cited). As this is a frontier topic for research, it is helpful to indicate who is saying what in the debate. But if you think so, I can add the professional title of each author. But they are all researchers (whether they are medical researchers, biologists, researchers, psychologists, neurologists, or others, however, it seems to be a redundant notion for the reader)

6) In body image disturbance, all four components that make up the body image are altered. I will write it better to make it more understandable

7) The latest review on body image disturbance treatments is Ziser 2018. The new therapies are newer than 2018 and have not yet been replicated. But they are all those who focus on the perceptual component of the disorder. As Dakanalis et al suggested following the release of Janet Treasure's Primer in Science (in 2015), attention needs to be paid to the development of therapies that focus on the perceptual component of the disorder. I believe, but this is my opinion, that this newer part completes the article. No problem in case to eliminate it. But it would mean completely eliminating the treatment part of the perceptual component of the disorder. And it would be a shame because it would be a half-told "story". Srobodao84 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I very much have to agree with Urve on #7 - as far as medical articles on Wikipedia go, if it's not in a WP:MEDRS, we don't care about it. It's the same as how no normal medical authority is going to recommend their practitioners start using a treatment that's only had a couple of studies on it. A statement to the effect of what was said by Dakanalis et al could be included in this WP article, but the fact is that until there are more reviews, we won't be able to figure out what scientific consensus is in order to summarise it, regardless of whether the story is complete. That's just how science is - it's never going to be complete. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

regarding number 5 - it's probably better to just not include the researcher names, unless that person's involvement is somehow of note, in which case the reason why it's of note is important. I disagree pretty strongly with your point that it is helpful to indicate who's saying what - to whom is that helpful? People don't know any difference between spitzer and dakanalis (and, as you say, the difference between a neurology and a psych researcher is negligible here), so that information adds nothing. Unless, of course, they were someone very important, like the head of the APA. If you pare the debate down to essentially to "a review found this, however another review found this" (as opposed to "This person found this, however this other person found this"), it will give readers the same amount of distinguishing information. I would actually suggest considering using "a 2015 review found this, however a 2018 review found this other thing", because the distinguishing feature has the inbuilt meaning of time, which is of greater use to a reader. A more recent review is more likely to include more recent research. --Xurizuri (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Xurizuri

Look I'm not sure if I'm meant to create a new heading, but it does appear to be the convention. Please tell me if I'm wrong. This is a really great article! It covers a lot of topics in a really clear way. Potential areas for improvement (I'll avoid repeating point made by Urve):

• Ideally, the article should try to follow the layout of MOS:MED#Signs or symptoms. For the most part, the sections in the article roughly align to the sections they give there, so it would primarily be a task of re-ordering.

The section "In binge eating disorder": this section discusses anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. It should be renamed.

• Under Definition / DSM-5, the section is actually mostly talking about the definition in literature. It is probably also worth me noting (as a strange person who isn't a psychologist but for some reason still has a DSM-5) that there is extended information on diagnostic features for each condition, which is basically impossible to find online.
  • Under anorexia nervosa, there is some more information given about the different ways that BID can express - "the experience and significance of body weight and shape are distorted ... Some individuals feel globally overwight. Others realize that they are thin but are still concerned that certain body parts, [frequently] the abdomen, buttocks and thighs, are 'too fat'. They may employ a variety of techniques to evaluate their body size or weight, including frequent weighing, obsessive measuring of boy parts, and persistent use of a mirror to check for perceived areas of 'fat'". It then goes on to describe the other parts of that diagnostic criteria, i.e. over-emphasis on body weight / shape in self-confidence, or an inability to realise the dangers of how malnourished they are.
  • The diagnostic criteria for bulimia nervosa don't actually mention BID, but it is briefly mentioned in the additional information.
  • The diagnostic criteria for binge eating disorder also doesn't mention BID. It's actually also not mentioned in the additional information on diagnostic features - the closest is "negative feelings related to body weight, body shape, and food", mentioned as a common antecedent. It is mentioned as a possible feature under differential diagnosis (as a way to differentiate from obesity) - "levels of overevaluation of body weight and shape are higher in obese individuals with the disorder than in those without the disorder".
• Under Definition, it would be good to also summarise the ICD, as the other major diagnostic system. The ICD is currently in transition; the new version (ICD-11) has been written and ratified by the WHO, but it only comes into effect in member countries on 1 January 2022. 1.5 months to go! So it's probably best to summarise them both, as ICD-10 will continue to be relevant to research for a while, but ICD-11 is technically the reference version for diagnosis now, and it will be literally the reference version very soon. Both versions are available online from the ICD website. Just to summarise, the only feeding/eating disorder in ICD-11 that mentions BID is anorexia nervosa. Of the three, ICD-10 has only anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa; neither mention BID.
• Avoid sentence construction that includes "one's", e.g. The age of onset for body image disturbance is often early adolescence, the age in which one's comparison to their peers becomes more significant and leads to a greater sensitivity towards criticism of, or teasing about, one's physical appearance. it's not super commonly used in English so it may be confusing for readers. It is allowed in MOS (see MOS:YOU), but it does mention that other ways of approaching it are preferable if it feels stilted. For example, that quoted sentence could be reworded to "The age of onset for body image disturbance is often early adolescence, the age at which individuals begin to place more importance on comparing themselves to peers [alternately - "begin to compare themselves to peers more frequently" - both are true], leading to greater sensitivity to criticism or teasing of their physical appearance".
• Avoid words like "fortunately" or "unfortunately" - they place a value judgement on the information (see MOS:UNFORTUNATELY).
• It would be really useful to have more information on cross-cultural differences - that being said, if there are no reviews that summarise cross-cultural differences, then oh well. For example, under the cognitive component section, there's mention of allocentrism of self-perception as being unusual, which inherently implies that the opposite is the norm. This did make me immediately wonder how this manifests in people from allocentric cultures - is this component irrelevant, or is it exaggerated to be even more allocentric than others in their cultural group? Even if there are no reviews that talk about these phenomena cross-culturally, I have to assume some of the reviews have at least said "gosh it would be nice if we weren't just researching white people" - so at least a basic statement of "most research has been done in x group, and more research is required to establish if y phenomenon occurs across cultures" should be possible in a lot of cases.
• The "Prevention" section needs expansion. If you've had trouble finding things, it may be worth also looking into educational research - there is work in that space to improve student body image - and work with college students. Psych researchers love to experiment on college students; convenience sampling is what it is.
• An image in the lead would be great.

I hope that helps. I may also come and clean up some of the smaller issues with sentence structure. --Xurizuri (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Srobodao84: to ensure they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing note: I am closing this PR because of inactivity. A new PR can be opened once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)