Talk:Beck Depression Inventory/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

I'm not sure what the three publications in the References are supposed to be, as they don't seem to have been used in the article. Is this a Further reading section?

Looks like further reading to me - though I've now used one of them in the article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a request for citation since last November.

Done. I have found sources for translation and use in other languages. However, some have been validated and some not and I have yet to find a comprehensive source for this.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Researchers and clinicians who work with medically ill populations might also consider using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression Scale (CES-D) or the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as alternative measures." This sounds perilously close to offering advice. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Some may consider it inappropriate to make a diagnosis ...". Who are these "some"? Would anyone consider it appropriate to make a diagnosis of depression based solely on a self-report inventory?

Sorted.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Another serious limitation is that in participants with concomitant physical illness, it has been suggested that the BDI's reliance on physical symptoms such as fatigue might artificially inflate scores due to symptoms of the illness, rather than of depression." This sentence needs to be rewritten. A serious limitation is that it's been suggested? Not that it's been demonstrated to be true in the case of MS patients, for instance?

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no mention of the BDI's application in monitoring the effectiveness of treatment for depression.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not consider the effectiveness or otherwise of the BDI with non-Caucasian ethnic groups such as African Americans.[1]

I am dubious that this link conforms to the requirement of WP:EL. It is in any event mislabelled, as it appears to be a comprehensive list of depression scales including the BDI, not alternatives to it.

Relabelled.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs #2 and #3 are missing last access dates.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a little too short to adequately summarise the article. None of the material from the Impact or Limitations sections is mentioned, for instance.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These all look fairly fixable but I'm afraid I'm swamped right now, anyone else want to take a stab at addressing these? Pretty please? --PaulWicks (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had a stab at most of it PW but it would be best if you checked it over. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping into the breach Fainites. I'd still like to see something added about the inventory's cross-cultural applicability, but I'm now satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.