The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll start this in a bit.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject, apart from news reports. I do think it is a very essential subject, and will be more and more so in the near future.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done, Doing..., Not done, Removed, Added, and Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.
Writing looks professional. But the organization may need some tweaking.
within societal conception of new media).
Founded in current research ...You immediately start by a conclusion that the consequences of digital media use are adverse. You should start with a more neutral premise first.
not providing false balanceYou can simply start by saying that the relationship between digital media use and mental health is complex, or is multi-faceted, or has been studied from different angels. IMHO it is a bit odd to start the first sentence of the article describing compulsive behaviors, when you have not yet properly introduced the topics in its entirety. My point is not that you need to describe positive effects of digital media by all means, but rather that the structure of the article looks as though the original topic of the article was not Digital media use and mental health, but addiction or something like that.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
internet overusehow is this defined in the literature?
curvilinear relationship
to a 2018 UK parliamentary committeeYou mean, in a report to this committee?
caveats of researcherscaveats is not often applied to people. What do you mean exactly?
This has led experts to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a unified phenomenon, with some calling to delineate proposed disorders based on individual online activity
as taking away digital devices may also have a detrimental effectI suppose you are referring to the fact that children unacquainted with technology will not be able to keep up with peers, but it isn't clear, it's too brief.
guidelines have been criticised in lacking evidenceYou mean, not being drawn from evidence? Fixed to not being evidence based -- E.3 ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is some limited evidence ...Limited evidence as to the effectiveness?
by a 2019 United KingdomPlease move this to the front of the sentence, so its is clear that you are not talking about the 2016 study. Done -- E.3 ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is preliminary evidence that mental health problems can be effectively treated through interventions delivered digitallyThis is quite relevant, can you expand?
Concerns exist over the effects of media use on childrenWeasel phrase, please specify.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
with stress showing the highest effect sizePlease clarify a bit for the layman that you mean reduction of stress.
of these issuesFor the purpose of clarity, please reiterate which issues you mean.
many disciplines continue to workscholars in many disciplines continue to work
risks and challengesAvoid challenges in this sense, per WP:WTW
was described as the "highest quality" evidenceWhat did the evidence prove exactly?
Radeski and Christiakis (the 2019 editor of JAMA Pediatrics)Please mention Christiakis' name from the first instance you mention him.
The University College London offers a free five-week course in relation to this, entitled Anthropology of Social Media: Why we Post, as well as offering other free e-books in relation to the issueless relevant, please delete. or move to new section external links.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting information.
Digital sociology, overlapping with digital anthropology and considering cultural geographies, explores "the ways in which people interact with and use digital media using both qualitative methodologies (such as interviews, focus groups and ethnographic research)Sentence is a bit messy, please split up in multiple sentences.
revealed that the level of religiosity has a significant effectweasel phrase, please specify. Fixed -- E.3 ( talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
up to three hours moreplease include "... than higher income youths"
Guardian Media GroupThe name of the newspaper is better known.
It also investigates the various contextualisations of longstanding concerns in relation to young people's dependence on "these technologiesI understand what you mean, but it reads a bit too complex for wikipedia.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
They considered that these same vulnerable group...If researchers speculate on something without any evidence yet, write consider. If they've already found evidence, write something along the lines of found, discovered or a 1993 study showed, etc. Researchers noting something doesn't imply evidence either. Speculation by reliable sources can be included in a wikipedia article, but just be clear whether it's speculation or findings you're talking about
digital divide amongst the vulnerablePerhaps I misunderstand, but do you not mean digital divide between the vulnerable and the not vulnerable'
Three journalistsFirst, you have to introduce the moral panic you're talking about first. You mention it briefly in the lead, but you never really explain what kind of moral panic occurred. Secondly, it isn't quite clear how search engines focusing on popularity lead to moral panic. It would seem you are skipping one or more variables here. Thirdly, stating that Google only uses popularity as a sorting criterion needs multiple good sources, since it flies against what is generally known about Google, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: on rereading, it may be worth combining psychology and psychiatry as this article has evolved, as there isn't really a clear difference in terms of investigators as far as I can tell. Digital anthropology is clearly a separate field as is digital sociology. What do you think? --
E.3 (
talk) 05:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
so far the neural mechanisms and biological underpinnings of excessive digital media use are unknownPlease indicate timeframe, per WP:WTW. E.g.: "As of 2017..."-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Technology
whatever it takes to make (social media) safer online especially for (young people)I wasn't able to trace this quote in the cited source. Am I overlooking something?
incorporated it as "screen time"Please specify that it measures screen time.
forcing itIn British English, isn't they more commonly used for organizations?
has been investigated in some surveysPlease specify for what it has been investigated.
Two large investors
Much has changed now. I will have to review the article again. The copy-editing will be less than in the first reading. I'll try to be brief and as helpful as possible to not make the review too long.
Internet addiction has been considered as a diagnosis since the mid 1990sThat's a weasel phrase. If it has been established as a diagnosis, please say so. If it hasn't, leave it out. To consider means they're no conclusions yet. You might also want to use the word consider a little less: there are 29 instances in this article. Style is not part of GA though.
inherent benefitsWhy would the Internet have inherent benefits? You will have to expand on that, if that's really what the study says.
It considered that ...Again, if this is a research finding, don't use consider.
that continued established "concerns ...Can we leave out established?
No comments.
The report also observed ...Did the report discover such a curvi-linear relationship? If so, please say so.
for patients with bipolar disorder may be a "double-edged sword"You left out the subject of the sentence. Probably an edit scar.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
No commments.
rather than forcing screen timeYou hadn't mentioned yet that the guidelines mentioned above limit the amount of screen time.
which have been criticised by some experts.Weasel phrase. Specify, or when not relevant enough, leave it out.
A philosophy journalPlease specify.
They considered its possible amelioration by consideringPlease use a more specific term than consider, in both instances.
No comments.
The lead is already quite good.
Some experts have considered benefits of moderate digital media use in various domainsYou mean, they studied those benefits? Fixed to investigated -- E.3 ( talk) 16:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
We are nearly done with the prose of the article, you have dedicated much time to it and you have improved the article much. What remains is to check whether all the subject matter has been covered in the article.
* These are some studies I found just looking at the first page of a Google Scholar search for "digital media" and "health". You might want to review whether you have covered all the important subjects, per GA criteria of sufficient broadness.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 13:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There may be a lot of negatives here, but in general, the article can be quickly corrected, reorganized and approved as GA. It will need a bit of your time first.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Organisational perspectives – Non governmental organisations, support and advocacy groups provide resources to people overusing digital media, with or without codified diagnoses, [1] [2] including from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. [3] [4] A 2018 OECD report that considered developmental and educational risks of the internet, noting its inherent benefits. It considered that "greater social media use is associated with poorer sleep and mental health", whilst noting the benefits of structured, limited internet use in children and adolescents. It also noted an overall 40% increase in internet use in school age children between 2010 and 2015, and that different OECD nations had marked variations in childhood technology use. [5]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
E.3, there are a few comments from the second reading. After you have dealt with these, we can move to the lead and wrap it up.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll start this in a bit.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject, apart from news reports. I do think it is a very essential subject, and will be more and more so in the near future.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done, Doing..., Not done, Removed, Added, and Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.
Writing looks professional. But the organization may need some tweaking.
within societal conception of new media).
Founded in current research ...You immediately start by a conclusion that the consequences of digital media use are adverse. You should start with a more neutral premise first.
not providing false balanceYou can simply start by saying that the relationship between digital media use and mental health is complex, or is multi-faceted, or has been studied from different angels. IMHO it is a bit odd to start the first sentence of the article describing compulsive behaviors, when you have not yet properly introduced the topics in its entirety. My point is not that you need to describe positive effects of digital media by all means, but rather that the structure of the article looks as though the original topic of the article was not Digital media use and mental health, but addiction or something like that.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
internet overusehow is this defined in the literature?
curvilinear relationship
to a 2018 UK parliamentary committeeYou mean, in a report to this committee?
caveats of researcherscaveats is not often applied to people. What do you mean exactly?
This has led experts to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a unified phenomenon, with some calling to delineate proposed disorders based on individual online activity
as taking away digital devices may also have a detrimental effectI suppose you are referring to the fact that children unacquainted with technology will not be able to keep up with peers, but it isn't clear, it's too brief.
guidelines have been criticised in lacking evidenceYou mean, not being drawn from evidence? Fixed to not being evidence based -- E.3 ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is some limited evidence ...Limited evidence as to the effectiveness?
by a 2019 United KingdomPlease move this to the front of the sentence, so its is clear that you are not talking about the 2016 study. Done -- E.3 ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is preliminary evidence that mental health problems can be effectively treated through interventions delivered digitallyThis is quite relevant, can you expand?
Concerns exist over the effects of media use on childrenWeasel phrase, please specify.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
with stress showing the highest effect sizePlease clarify a bit for the layman that you mean reduction of stress.
of these issuesFor the purpose of clarity, please reiterate which issues you mean.
many disciplines continue to workscholars in many disciplines continue to work
risks and challengesAvoid challenges in this sense, per WP:WTW
was described as the "highest quality" evidenceWhat did the evidence prove exactly?
Radeski and Christiakis (the 2019 editor of JAMA Pediatrics)Please mention Christiakis' name from the first instance you mention him.
The University College London offers a free five-week course in relation to this, entitled Anthropology of Social Media: Why we Post, as well as offering other free e-books in relation to the issueless relevant, please delete. or move to new section external links.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting information.
Digital sociology, overlapping with digital anthropology and considering cultural geographies, explores "the ways in which people interact with and use digital media using both qualitative methodologies (such as interviews, focus groups and ethnographic research)Sentence is a bit messy, please split up in multiple sentences.
revealed that the level of religiosity has a significant effectweasel phrase, please specify. Fixed -- E.3 ( talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
up to three hours moreplease include "... than higher income youths"
Guardian Media GroupThe name of the newspaper is better known.
It also investigates the various contextualisations of longstanding concerns in relation to young people's dependence on "these technologiesI understand what you mean, but it reads a bit too complex for wikipedia.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
They considered that these same vulnerable group...If researchers speculate on something without any evidence yet, write consider. If they've already found evidence, write something along the lines of found, discovered or a 1993 study showed, etc. Researchers noting something doesn't imply evidence either. Speculation by reliable sources can be included in a wikipedia article, but just be clear whether it's speculation or findings you're talking about
digital divide amongst the vulnerablePerhaps I misunderstand, but do you not mean digital divide between the vulnerable and the not vulnerable'
Three journalistsFirst, you have to introduce the moral panic you're talking about first. You mention it briefly in the lead, but you never really explain what kind of moral panic occurred. Secondly, it isn't quite clear how search engines focusing on popularity lead to moral panic. It would seem you are skipping one or more variables here. Thirdly, stating that Google only uses popularity as a sorting criterion needs multiple good sources, since it flies against what is generally known about Google, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: on rereading, it may be worth combining psychology and psychiatry as this article has evolved, as there isn't really a clear difference in terms of investigators as far as I can tell. Digital anthropology is clearly a separate field as is digital sociology. What do you think? --
E.3 (
talk) 05:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
so far the neural mechanisms and biological underpinnings of excessive digital media use are unknownPlease indicate timeframe, per WP:WTW. E.g.: "As of 2017..."-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Technology
whatever it takes to make (social media) safer online especially for (young people)I wasn't able to trace this quote in the cited source. Am I overlooking something?
incorporated it as "screen time"Please specify that it measures screen time.
forcing itIn British English, isn't they more commonly used for organizations?
has been investigated in some surveysPlease specify for what it has been investigated.
Two large investors
Much has changed now. I will have to review the article again. The copy-editing will be less than in the first reading. I'll try to be brief and as helpful as possible to not make the review too long.
Internet addiction has been considered as a diagnosis since the mid 1990sThat's a weasel phrase. If it has been established as a diagnosis, please say so. If it hasn't, leave it out. To consider means they're no conclusions yet. You might also want to use the word consider a little less: there are 29 instances in this article. Style is not part of GA though.
inherent benefitsWhy would the Internet have inherent benefits? You will have to expand on that, if that's really what the study says.
It considered that ...Again, if this is a research finding, don't use consider.
that continued established "concerns ...Can we leave out established?
No comments.
The report also observed ...Did the report discover such a curvi-linear relationship? If so, please say so.
for patients with bipolar disorder may be a "double-edged sword"You left out the subject of the sentence. Probably an edit scar.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
No commments.
rather than forcing screen timeYou hadn't mentioned yet that the guidelines mentioned above limit the amount of screen time.
which have been criticised by some experts.Weasel phrase. Specify, or when not relevant enough, leave it out.
A philosophy journalPlease specify.
They considered its possible amelioration by consideringPlease use a more specific term than consider, in both instances.
No comments.
The lead is already quite good.
Some experts have considered benefits of moderate digital media use in various domainsYou mean, they studied those benefits? Fixed to investigated -- E.3 ( talk) 16:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
We are nearly done with the prose of the article, you have dedicated much time to it and you have improved the article much. What remains is to check whether all the subject matter has been covered in the article.
* These are some studies I found just looking at the first page of a Google Scholar search for "digital media" and "health". You might want to review whether you have covered all the important subjects, per GA criteria of sufficient broadness.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 13:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There may be a lot of negatives here, but in general, the article can be quickly corrected, reorganized and approved as GA. It will need a bit of your time first.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Organisational perspectives – Non governmental organisations, support and advocacy groups provide resources to people overusing digital media, with or without codified diagnoses, [1] [2] including from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. [3] [4] A 2018 OECD report that considered developmental and educational risks of the internet, noting its inherent benefits. It considered that "greater social media use is associated with poorer sleep and mental health", whilst noting the benefits of structured, limited internet use in children and adolescents. It also noted an overall 40% increase in internet use in school age children between 2010 and 2015, and that different OECD nations had marked variations in childhood technology use. [5]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
E.3, there are a few comments from the second reading. After you have dealt with these, we can move to the lead and wrap it up.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|