The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12 October 2019 [1].
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)
Image review
Brianboulton ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ E.3: Sorry for my delayed follow-up; I'll begin my review shortly. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Taking a look now.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I have done a little copy editing on the way, which you will want to check.
~*"the largest five social media platforms" Is this cited? I am not sure that it is accurate. Perhaps 'five large social media platforms'
Some points from a first run through. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, some copy editing for you to check.
Lead:
History and terminology:
Problematic use:
Mental health benefits:
Other disciplines:
Digital technology use in mental health care:
Response of large technology firms:
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)
|
Retitled the section and added China content summarised (sourcing thoughts above) -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 12:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (
talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
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."
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.)
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
Proposed diagnostic categories
Online problem gambling, Cyberbullying, Media multitasking, Assessment and treatment and Mental health benefits
Digital anthropology
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)
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, [update] 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, [update] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Support promotion based upon the the criteria that I assessed below. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
See discussion section. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
{{
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)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)
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)
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)
As a random sample, I took a look at the start of the "Problematic use" section.
notionallysecondary 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.
Alexbrn ( talk) 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12 October 2019 [1].
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)
Image review
Brianboulton ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ E.3: Sorry for my delayed follow-up; I'll begin my review shortly. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Taking a look now.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I have done a little copy editing on the way, which you will want to check.
~*"the largest five social media platforms" Is this cited? I am not sure that it is accurate. Perhaps 'five large social media platforms'
Some points from a first run through. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, some copy editing for you to check.
Lead:
History and terminology:
Problematic use:
Mental health benefits:
Other disciplines:
Digital technology use in mental health care:
Response of large technology firms:
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)
|
Retitled the section and added China content summarised (sourcing thoughts above) -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 12:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (
talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
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."
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.)
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
Proposed diagnostic categories
Online problem gambling, Cyberbullying, Media multitasking, Assessment and treatment and Mental health benefits
Digital anthropology
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)
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, [update] 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, [update] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Support promotion based upon the the criteria that I assessed below. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
See discussion section. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
{{
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)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)
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)
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)
As a random sample, I took a look at the start of the "Problematic use" section.
notionallysecondary 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.
Alexbrn ( talk) 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)