Talk:Modafinil/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 05:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I started resolving the issues that you've mentioned in the #Changes needed section, and I aim to finish today. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contributions as the reviewer. I've implemented all the changes you requested so far. Zerf also made proper edits, removing information that was not properly cited or that was speculative and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

On promotional-sounding language in the lead: I removed promotional tone by rewriting the sentence, see Talk:Modafinil/Archive 1#Distinct mechanisms of action of modafinil make it an option for sleep disorders when the other stimulants are not desired due to their euphoric effects.

On medical uses: I emphasized that modafinil only treats excessive sleepiness and does not treat cataplexy, although it reduces the frequency or severity of the onset of cataplexy; however, it is not approved specifically for cataplexy.

On bipolar depression, I changed to "depressive phase of bipolar disorder" as it is more correct, and moved text from the research section of bipolar depression to the "depressive phase of bipolar disorder" in medical uses; and renamed the section on research on depression to "major depressive disorder", where modafinil is not efficient. Therefore, we now have clearly differentiated "depressive phase of bipolar disorder" where modafinil is somewhat helpful as adjunct therapy (in the medical uses section) and "major depressive disorder" in the "Research section" where modafinil is not efficient.

On birth defects, there were studies on congenital defects at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2769999 - but they are primary research, whereas as healthcare authority UK warning that prohibits modafinil during pregnancy and 2 months before getting pregnant is a serious warning that has consequences for the healthcare industry and modafinil use; since it is mostly a prescription medication in many countries, healthcare professionals will probably stop prescribing modafinil to pregnant women due to the warning on the health authority that justify the warning on congenital defects. There is another link to a journal article on the same: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2771814

I added these links as additional references. I also mentioned that exposure to modafinil during pregnancy increases the risk of malformations in newborns, such as congenital torticollis, hypospadias, and congenital heart defects.

On the fact that modafinil can reduce the efficacy of hormonal birth control, so other forms of contraception should be used, it is listed in the "Interactions" section, but I will added a note in the Contraindications section as well. Still, I think that the more appropriate place to specify that is "Interactions" rather than contraindications because both "modafinil" and "hormonal contraceptives" are drugs that interact with each other.

I also replaced the term "mood switch" with "mood swing" in the text, as you suggested because there is an article "mood swing" in Wikipedia, not "mood switch"; however, the papers cited use the term "mood switch."

You've also asked on whether there are specific birth defects, and I specified the defects.

I thought that it was already mentioned in the "interactions section", in a paragraph about steroid hormones, that modafinil can reduce the efficacy of hormonal birth control, so other forms of contraception should be used. I expended this section to make additional emphasis on that and add more citations which are most relevant.

I added the explanation on why modafinil is not recommended in congential heart conditions or pre-existing heart conditions. However, I could not find explanation why modafinil is contraindicated in a rare glucose-galactose malabsorption. I only found that in monographs without any explanation of the reasons.

On citations: I resolved all the "citation needed" instances. Zefr also helped. Are citations now correct? Is there any work that needs to be done on citations?

Thank you very much again for your contributions on writing the encyclopedia. Please let me know how can we improve the article further, should you have the ideas. In particular, I'd like you be sure that the article meets the GA criteria. If you are in doubt about certain items where the article may not fully meet the GA criteria, please let me know so I could improve it for compliance to the GA criteria. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've seen that when filling the GA criteria reference table, you were not sure whether the article is neutral and whether it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Indeed, the sentence in the lead was not neutral, so I rewritten it. I can further rewrite or delete the information that you may see as not neutral. I have no personal interest in modafinil and my interest is solely to improve the encyclopedia, and promote as many articles to the GA status as I can, but since Wikipedia for me is a hobby, I am limited in the amount of time I can devote. I have written or improved a couple of articles in the past that reached the GA status, and I also nominated several articles now that are waiting for a reviewer to come. Still, I have tried to follow the guidelines how to write a good article for Wikipedia, but I may have missed some points or made some mistakes. I am open to constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. I hope you can help me make this article a good article for Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and attention. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues: there are numerous duplicate links and refs not in order throughout. Dup links can be viewed with this script: importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); Zefr (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Zefr! I've used this tool and removed duplicate wikilinks if they were twice in the same subsection. However, if the wikilinks were far apart from each other, I kept them. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tool importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); displayed duplicate wikilinks, but it did not display duplicate references or cases where multiple references placed together were not sorted in ascending order. I manually sorted the references in ascending order in places where there were more than 1 reference. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tea with toast! I noticed you have been absent from the review process for a few days, presumably while preparing additional feedback about the article. Your dedication to thorough evaluation is commendable, and I appreciate your commitment to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia content. Per my understanding of the Good Article review instructions, review timeframes for Wikipedia Good Article nominations can vary based on factors such as the article’s scope and complexity. However, a general guideline suggests that the review process should ideally conclude within seven days. Of course, there are exceptions—such as when a reviewer seeks assistance or clarification on the GA nominations discussion page (Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations). My understanding is that the Good Article (GA) process intentionally maintains a lightweight approach, distinct from the more rigorous requirements of Featured Article (FA) nominations, as outlined in WP:RGA. Rather than striving for perfection, the GA review process aims to ensure that articles adequately meet the GA criteria (without additional rigour). Articles are dynamic entities, akin to living organisms, with room for continuous improvement. Therefore, if the article needs to be better but matches the GA criteria, it can be improved further after getting the GA status. As such, I kindly request your further feedback on the article. Thank you for your time and dedication to maintaining the high standards of the encyclopedia content. I look forward to your valuable input. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I will address the issues that you have pointed out. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits! I'm pleased by the changes that are being made. I'm not yet finished with my review, but hopefully I'll have the time to wrap up my end of the review the coming days. Tea with toast (話) 02:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Looking forward for further information from you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I have concerns about the layout, especially making sure things are in their proper sections. I feel there is a lot of blurring between things that are in "contraindications" and "adverse effects". Similarly, things that are in the "usage" sections, that I think are better suited to "research"; as well as things in the "drug tolerance" and "addiction" that might do better in the "research" section;
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	Concerns here. Just as an example, in the section about "cognitive benefits in people with bipolar disorder who are in a remission state", just reading the abstracts for citations #55 and #56, these appear to be metanalyses about the bipolar depression rather than cognitive benefits. (Additionally, I believe this belongs in the "cognitive benefits" section).
	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 have concerns about this, especially things that are included in the "research" section.
	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.	First off, I'd like to express appreciation for all the hard work that has gone into making this a "nearly good" article. I can tell of effort has gone into this article. However, I don't think it meets GA criteria yet. I hope a few things can be corrected so that it can meet criteria in the near future. Tea with toast (話) 03:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needed

I have not completed my review, but below is a list of some of the changes that need to be made to pass the article. There may be more to come. Tea with toast (話) 01:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
- Remove promotional-sounding language (e.g. "...unique mechanism of action sets it apart from other stimulants, making it a valuable medication..."

Medical uses
- It should be specified that modafinil only treats excessive sleepiness and does not treat cataplexy.
- It might be best to broaden the off-label use in depression to both unipolar and bipolar depression. I would keep it succinct and make sure is is in agreement with what is presented in the "Research" section. Right now, there are inconsistencies in the "bipolar depression" subsections, including whether or not the medication can induce a manic episode (also, that would be the preferred language instead of "mood switch"

Contraindications
- Are there specific birth defects?
- Should be noted that modafinil can reduce the efficacy of hormonal birth control, so other forms of contraception should be used
- Is there a reason it is contraindicated for people with congenital problems?

Citations (ref numbers from this version)
- I've added multiple "citation needed" tags. Most, I think just might need the reference moved from the end of the paragraph to the end of the sentence
- Full citation for: 23, 26, 64, 109, 149, 159-164

Reference templates and formatting

There are numerous incomplete, unformatted references needing attention in their respective templates for consistency and GA quality. As a past GA editor, I sense these will likely need manual editing. Citation bot is worth a try, although it appears to have bugs in recent attempts. Zefr (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled {{cite web}} references with appropriate data. The templates such as "cite journal" were adequately filled. The only templates that I found were not adequately filled were "cite web". Thank you for pointing that out. I filled them. Should you think other templates should also be filled, please let me know (specify exactly which templates should be filled). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On bipolar disorder

You've mentioned two references when you wrote about bipolar disorder. These references, PMID 31643130 and PMID 36561896, that you've mentioned, were about the use of modafinil as an adjunctive treatment in the depressive phase of bipolar disorder, which may feature excessive sleepiness and fatigue.

These articles claim that modafinil increases the effect of the main treatment and is safe and effective, especially for people who do not respond well to standard antidepressants. These articles also claim that modafinil does not significantly increase the risk of mood swings or suicide attempts in people with bipolar disorder. They also claim that modafinil may also have cognitive benefits in people with bipolar disorder who are in a remission state.

You mentioned that the abstract section of these articles does not mention that. In addition, while the abstracts of the articles may not explicitly mention cognitive enhancement, the full text of the articles provides a more comprehensive view of the research. It’s also worth noting that the abstract is often a summary of the key findings and may not include all the details found in the full text of the article.

When I refer to particular articles, I read the whole article, not just the abstract. You may use the Wikipedia Library to read the bodies of the articles. The article PMID 31643130 has free access. The article PMID 36561896 also has free access. In the reason justifying that the article "Modafinil" does not fit the criteria 2b of the Good Article criteria, you mention "just reading the abstracts for citations #55 and #56, these appear to be metanalyses about the bipolar depression rather than cognitive benefits". However, there is a concern about why you refer to the abstract only, not to the whole article. It is true that the articles are not about the cognitive benefits per se but about the use of modafinil in people with bipolar disorder who are in a remission state, who may feature excessive sleepiness and fatigue, and for whom modafinil is used as adjunctive treatment to increase the efficiency of the main treatment and to ameliorate the symptoms of sleepiness and fatigue, and to provide cognitive benefits where the cognitive functions otherwise would have been affected by the sleepiness and fatigue.

I sometimes make quotations in a reference from the body of the article, but some editors dispute this practice and delete the quotation. Therefore, a talk page is a good place to discuss whether an article is appropriate with something in the body but not the abstract. Still for these two articles PMID 31643130 and PMID 36561896, this is not needed since they have free full access.

The study PMID 31643130 concluded the efficiency (a significant improvement in depressive symptoms compared to placebo) and safety of modafinil as an adjunctive treatment.

I appreciate your thorough examination of the article and your commitment to ensuring that Wikipedia provides accurate and reliable information.

I kept these references where needed and added new references when there was a claim on cognitive enhancement in bipolar disorder patients.

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On sections

I improved the sections "Contraindications", "Adverse effects" and "Usage". I also made distinctions between the sections clearer, and deleted mentions of irrelevant studies or moved them to the "Research" section. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]