Talk:Exhaustion disorder

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Exhaustion disorder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Draken Bowser (talk · contribs) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 17:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In the second comment of the diagnosis section it says "but like ECG may prove useful for differential diagnostics". Adding some oddly phrased sentences I found my third time reading: " Recovery will generally take from six months to a full year, sometimes longer." - could be worded better. "The diagnosis is not used by any other healthcare system internationally." Other healthcare systems and internationally somewhat imply the same thing. Could be phrased as "the diagnosis is not used outside of Sweeden" "The symptoms of exhaustion disorder are numerous..." I would remove "numerous" and just stick to listing the symptoms. "Exhaustion disorder and depression have several overlapping symptoms and often occur simultaneously..." I feel like overlapping and simultaneously kind of mean the same thing in this context and the sentence could be shortened. "Symptom overlap between exhaustion disorder and other mental disorders is not unusual, but rather a common theme among mental disorders." Not unusual and rather common mean the same thing in this context and I'd get rid of one of the two terms. "As the disease progresses the fatigue compounds, which leads to exhaustion and cognitive decline, and the worsening of other associated symptoms" I feel like this could be shortened to worsening of symptoms and cognitive decline. "For a while thereafter there is usually a marked aversion to the workplace" the usage of both thereafter and there makes this sentence sound odd. "As the overall condition slowly improves the physical symptoms tend to abate, but sleeping disorders and cognitive impairments may remain for a prolonged duration" I would remove "for a prolonged duration".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article passes all of the criteria except for the layout part. While the article does technically have a proper layout it doesn't follow Template:Article templates/Medical condition. I would try to fix this myself however the way in which the article is currently written makes it hard for me to do so.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Personally I would make the notes its own section but that's just preference.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There were some parts of the article that weren't verified by the source listed, I suspect maybe you made an error in citing the right page as the sources still pertain to the topic they just don't verify the specific information. I added templates to those sentences. It may also be an issue with using a different pdf version of one of the studies however I used the links you provided. I stopped verifying information after the prognosis section because of how big of an issue this is. Note: I was not able to access some of the references so I couldn't verify everything.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I feel that the background section under history is a bit off-topic, or at least could be condensed in a way that shows how it relates to the article topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until @Draken Bowser: can address the issues with 1a, 1b, and 2b.

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: Thanks for taking this on and undertaking a thorough review.

• 1a: blood samples and other adjuncts are commonly used in psychiatric diagnostics to rule out somatic diagnoses with overlapping symptoms. Could this be communicated more clearly perhaps?
• 1b: the article seems to be mostly in agreement with WP:MEDSECTIONS, after making "Prognosis" a lvl 2-heading. The manual wants "Risk factors" as a sub-section of "causes", which I'm not sure I agree with. Some sections are missing, a rudimentary "Society and culture"-section could be started by migrating the info under "Sick leave". Do you think it would be better to adhere to the section order suggested by MEDMOS?
• 2b: yeah, that's a big deal. I'm gonna have to go through the notes to see what's up.
• 3b: yes, I might be able to condense that a bit.

And again, thank you very much for your efforts. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser (pinging so you know i replied)

• 1a: I do understand what you are trying to say, I think it just needs to be worded better.
• 1b: I'm not looking for strict following of the MEDMOS outline here, I just felt that the sections were a bit out of place. I made some changes to the layout that I think improve the article. Feel free to revert these changes if you don't feel that they are contructive. I do feel that the sick leave section is appropriate on it's own as it does seem important to the topic. In regards to the risk factors section I do understand what you mean about it somewhat falling under the epidemiology section. Usually what I do is put the risk factors under the causes section and then briefly go over the relevant ones in the epidemiology section. for example if a disease was more prevelant in women and those with diabetes I would put the risk factors section under causes saying that diabetes is a known risk factor and then in the epidemiology section i would note that it's more common in women and those with diabetes.

Thank you for taking the time to improve on the issues I noted. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I could make a short bullet-point list of risk factors based on the available sources, or just migrate the current section up there.

What are the concerns vis-á-vis the sources for: The initial phase can last several years and various complaints such as fatigue, anxiety, irritability, sleeplessness, restlessness or bowel issues may erupt. During this phase, some people seek medical care for physical or isolated symptoms without the underlying cause being addressed. As the disease progresses the fatigue compounds, which leads to exhaustion and cognitive decline, and the worsening of other associated symptoms. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser The concerns I have with the sources for that section (and the other failed verification tags) is that your page numbers don't match up.

"The initial phase can last several years and various complaints such as fatigue, anxiety, irritability, sleeplessness, restlessness or bowel issues may erupt. During this phase, some people seek medical care for physical or isolated symptoms without the underlying cause being addressed" cites "Lindsäter et al. 2022, p. 4." and "Glise 2013, p. 19."

Lindsäter et al. 2022, p. 4 somewhat backs up this statement and talks about the symptoms you mentioned, seeking care for the symptoms, and failure to identify the cause it doesn't really support the theory of a phase. This might just be me nitpicking here but the article doesn't discuss phases of the condition, just that symptoms typically decrease. The Glise 2013 PDF is no longer avaible but I do have it downloaded and translated. page 19 of that document talks a bit about stress, risk factors, studies, and cortisol but nothing to back up the claim made above.

"As the disease progresses the fatigue compounds, which leads to exhaustion and cognitive decline, and the worsening of other associated symptoms." cites "Glise 2013, p. 19." which again doesn't discuss this. Page 7 of the same document does back up your claims a bit more so I suspect this was some error with citing the wrong pages. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I can replace Lindsäter so as to not infer anything. I first thought the disagreement on Glise (2013) may have originated from us possibly looking at different versions of the document. In my version both the table of contents as well as the heading and actual contents of page 19 is exclusively about "förlopp" i.e. the course of the disease. I'm really confused now. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The version I have has a section called "Om stress och psykisk ohälsa" on page 18 that continues onto page 19. Does that match up with your version? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have that heading anywhere in my version. At this point I'm inclined to just source as much as possible to Åsberg et al. (2024). It is the most recent and by some margin most authoritative source anyway, and I've finally gotten around to reading the relevant chapters.

1a overlapping and simultaneously is used to convey two different things, the symptoms are overlapping, but the conditions may also be co-occurring. Do I need a rephrase?

Technically it's saying "but rather a common". I'm not exactly sure how to bind the clauses without this restatement of the inverse. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

the wording makes sense to me thanks for clarifying. It might be easiest for me to just leave this review on hold till you figure out the sourcing and then you could either leave me a message on my talk page or ping me here when you fix up the sources. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath and Draken Bowser: If the review does not look like it will be completed promptly, please close the nomination. The article can be resubmitted at any time once the above concerns have been addressed. Fritzmann (message me) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a time limit for putting articles on hold (I am CWTATDTM I just changed my username) IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hold periods are typically for a week, but can be longer than that if the nominator requests more time to work on specific issues. However, if there is little progress made towards the review after a few weeks it is good practice to close the review, since there is no penalty for a failed nomination and the article can be renominated as soon as it is ready to return to GAN. Fritzmann (message me) 22:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I failed to realize that the nominator hadn’t edited in a couple days. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Final decision

I am unfortunately going to fail this article for right now. I just feel that it is a ways away from meeting the GA criteria. I have made a list of things that I feel should be improved before renomination. If you do choose to renominate I would be happy to review this article.

• The lead Ideally a lead section should be a summary of the body, this means that it usually doesn't need citations unless new information is being added. Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section is a good place to start. Some examples of some well written leads include Pentasomy X and Prepatellar bursitis. EDIT: This isn’t a huge deal and it’s really a preference thing according to WP:MEDCITE.
• Prose There are quite a few sentences that I feel could be better worded here. When I'm trying to improve prose I usually try to ask myself "is this the best possible way I could word this". Wikipedia:Writing better articles gives some good advice on this.
• Layout The layout here is still a bit awkward. For example you causes section is very short but then under Epidemiology you state "The principal cause is usually workplace stress, but several other factors influence the risk of disease" This should be in the causes section.
• Length There is some areas of this article I feel could be trimmed. The history section is a bit off-topic at times and could be shortened. The treatment section is also a bit lengthy. I would propose that for each treatment method, you put a sentence or two after about evidence instead of making them two different sections.
• Images The image in the infobox isn't ideal. This isn't a big enough deal for me to fail the article over but it would be cool if you could incorporate other images.

I really hope my decision to fail this article is not discouraging. I really can tell that you've put a lot of hard work into this article and it does reflect that. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)