Talk:Anxiety sensitivity

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

This article feels a bit one-sided. May it be that for reference is used the group, that for the writer might feel as, the leading one on this subject, but this quote from the article "As was predicted by Reiss and McNally (1985), a high score on the ASI is a powerful and unique predictor of who will have panic attacks, post-traumatic stress, and ordinary fears or phobias." caught my eye. Especially the part with the chosen words as "poweful [...] predictor" seems to me to be biased. 91.157.203.132 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, in my opinion the article relied far too heavily on primary sources (Reiss' work) and still does to some degree. I would guess this is a result of Reiss himself being a significant contributor to the article around 2013 and beyond - check Sreiss0410 and ReissProfile in the article's history. Although I haven't explored individual edits yet, this probably requires attention in order to address potential bias. I've added references to secondary sources, although the discussion of the index created by Reiss, the ASI, still relies too heavily on his own work in my opinion; it would benefit from further references to non-primary (and preferably more modern!) sources. (With that said, I don't feel that "powerful and unique predictor" is necessarily biased wording, but "powerful" does feel emotionally charged, so I would personally favour "strong and unique predictor" or something similar unless it is directly quoting the work itself.) GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]