Wikipedia:Peer review/Digital media use and mental health

Digital media use and mental health

This peer review discussion has been closed.

~~Updating peer review to reflect title of page. Currently nearly completed good article assessment. --E.3 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
I've listed this mid importance topic for peer review under social science and society. It has just achieved GA status with extensive review and any improvement would be most welcome by any interested Wikipedian, I'd like to aim for FA status after peer review. --E.3 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

Ok, this (Digital media use has been investigated in terms of mental health symptoms and diagnoses from many perspectives. - sounds vague and obvious, and should be combined with sentence 3 (They have been under study and analysis for some years, predominantly by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and medical experts. ) --> how about, "The possible mental health complications/implications of digital media use have been investigated by various researchers and cllinicians—predominantly psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and medical experts—for some years."

These phenomena behave differently in various societies and cultures. --> "behave" makes me think of a sentient entity..... --> "These phenomena manifest differently in various societies and cultures."

The delineation between beneficial and pathological use of digital media is not comprehensively codified, - hah, "codified" is ambitious! maybe "established" even (well, apart from self proclaimed experts coming up with random times on morning TV shows...)

Thanks so much for that @Cas Liber:, I'll look at that in the coming week! --E.3 (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @Casliber:, what do you think? I didn't say possible relationships as suggested because there are some relationships that have been established in the article, and I caveat them very carefully. Any further thoughts on the rest of the article with your expertise both on wiki and being a psychiatrist would be very welcome. --E.3 (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relationships between digital media use and mental health has been investigated by various researchers and clinicians - umm, if a clinician is doing research then they're a researcher, right? Which makes "and clinicians" redundant here..?

Removed --E.3 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While mental health problems have occurred throughout human history, - unnecessary and can be removed.

Removed --E.3 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christiakis, amongst other medical experts, has asserted that internet addiction may be "a 21st century epidemic" - err, he's the sole author of the paper, so I'd remove the other medical experts....

Removed --E.3 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The History and terminology section talks of benefits but these don't appear to be discussed anywhere in the article.

Comment: Most of the benefits appear to be in education and development as far as I understand have you heard of more specifically in mental health? I have WP:SYNTH issues with the title because I'm talking about mental health. The best quality evidence as stated appears to be the "U-shaped, curvilinear" moderate digital media use that I state a few times. Do you think I should go into educational / developmental benefits? --E.3 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new section what do you think? --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A big issue is whether this counts as a medical article or not - the article has material sourced from primary sources. In many areas, using this with care is okay as otherwsie there would be comprehensiveness issues. However in medical articles there is a much stricter adherence to secondary sources. Psychology is a bit of a grey area.....

Comment: Yes this was originally an anthropological/sociological perspective hence the less strict application of MEDRS. Psychology is indeed a grey area. And we don't really have a psychiatric consensus so that's why I have taken this approach. Many thanks again!--E.3 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think most if not all of the medical claims are now WP:MEDRS complaint. Perhaps not bipolar disorder, but quoting that study, I am essentially after the expert opinion that there are risks and challenges for that condition. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doc James

This caption makes a medical claim and the picture does not make that claim. Not sure if that picture adds much really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Thanks for the style tweaks! --E.3 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ebaleto (?Eastyn) copied from this diff by E.3

Looking at the lead by itself I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, the lead reflects the most important information but could outline the article better by clearly stating the 5 main headings. The lead gives more weight to the problematic digital media use over other main points of the article. The problematic digital media usage is by far way more dense than any other section. I feel the digital technology usage examples and other disciplines were lacking in the lead.

The sections are well organized for the most part. I felt the section’s order could be tweaked a little instead of the current order it might flow better as: History and terminology Problematic digital media use Other disciplines Assessment and Treatment Digital technology use in mental health care Response of Large Technology firms

Fixed Although Assessment and Treatment could be a separate section, given the breadth of this article, I think it should remain under problematic digital media use - otherwise the section heading would be overlong being Assessment and treatment of problematic digital media use' --E.3 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think each section’s length is equal to importance to the article’s subject. Because the article is about digital media use and mental health it makes sense that the largest section should be the section relating the two and how the two impact each other. As I noted above, I think ‘assessment and treatment’ should be it’s own section because we have now moved on from the analysis of how digital media use and mental health affect each other and now we are talking about a solution to the issue at hand. I think each section was necessary and reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature. The significant views were directly included in the other disciplines section. I don’t believe the article draws conclusions or tries to convince the reader to accept a particular point of view. If I were to describe the article’s language I would say it is clinical rather than emotional.

I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article because there is no bias and the writing appears to be impartial. There is a sentence that uses the "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." phrase in the introduction of the article stating “While mental health problems have occurred throughout human history, scientists are unclear as to the direct links between digital media use and mental health outcomes.” However, I do not feel this was an example or there were any examples of words or phrases that do not feel neutral.

Removed --E.3 (talk)

This article does not make any claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people any more than academic journals do when referring to scholars they have cited correctly. The article does not completely bombard you with negative information but it does not sugar coat some of the very serious affect digital media use can have on your mental health. This appears to be a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

Most statements in the article are connected to a reliable source such as textbooks and journal articles. Although there are some, the author does not rely on blogs or self-published authors. There are not a lot of statements attributed to only one or two sources. The article is balanced and does not lean too heavily into a single point of view. From what I observed there are no unsourced statements in the article or statements that I cannot find stated in the references. The sources are both listed and presented accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaleto (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)