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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this in a bit.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject, apart from news reports. I do think it is a very essential subject, and will be more and more so in the near future.

1. Prose:

• No copyright violations. The article has many quotes, but they appear to have a proper function.
• The article reads reasonably smoothly and professional, but the structure of the article is unclear. It isn't quite clear why you organized the content in this manner. Below I will do a detailed review of the prose.
•  Comment: Thanks, being an emerging topic, with each discipline approaching from different angles, that's why the bulk of the article is under "disciplinary perspectives". How would yourself or others structure it? I can reorganise under different headings in my sandbox, but I'll wait your further comments, thank you very much! --E.3 (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. MOS: The Further Reading section should come after the References section.  Done --E.3 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. References layout: References can be identified. No dead links, except for the Think Differently about Kids website, which cannot be accessed from my location, which is Europe. I can access the archived version, though.  Done --E.3 (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. Reliable sources: In general, these are very reliable. There are a number of blogs cited, of which I am not sure whether these are due.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: Yes.

7. Focus: Some examples raised seem too detailed and random.  Comment: which specifically? Thanks --E.3 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) I've done a fair bit of editing trying to address the focus and removing some unnecessary detail, addressing some flow and sourcing issues, thanks :) --E.3 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Relevant and licensed.

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like  Done,  Doing...,  Not done,  Removed,  Added, and  Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Writing looks professional. But the organization may need some tweaking.

• I will get back to this later, but just to start with: per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain any information that is not in the body of the text. The information should be in the body of the text as well, and the lead should only summarize the body, without any citations—these are in the body. {{done)) had another go at it, will put some DSM/ICD details after some more research tomorrow --E.3 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Only synonyms of the title of the article should be in bold in the lead.  Done. --E.3 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

digital media overuse is not synonymous with the title.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  Done --E.3 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* redrafted the first paragraph of the lead and the infobox here addressing below concerns --E.3 (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't clear what you mean by origins, since you are not describing the origin of words from the title of the article such as digital media. Perhaps history is more to the point.  Done have a better version updated, will have a look with fresh eyes tomorrow --E.3 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Done --E.3 (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are writing in British or Indian English (behaviour). You should inform other editors of this editorial choice by putting the template ((use British English)) (or Indian English) on the top of the article.  Done ((use British English)) is under discussion for deletion, I have put ((British English)) in the talk page in the interim --E.3 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The quote is a bit confusing, since it is incomplete: (within societal conception of new media).  Done --E.3 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Founded in current research ... You immediately start by a conclusion that the consequences of digital media use are adverse. You should start with a more neutral premise first.  Fixed New sentences here --E.3 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This still isn't a neutral broad statement introducing the relationship between digital media and mental health.Proliferation, concerns, compulsive behaviours and problems all imply that the article approaches this subject from a certain angle. In the first sentences of the article, and in a section with a broad heading title (History and terminology), you should start with a broader question first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Thanks, I have rejigged the first few sentences. The difficulty lies also in not providing false balance to the benefits of digital media use, which has not been comprehensively established scientifically, other than in treatment of mental health conditions, although there is plenty of expert opinion out there. At best we know that moderate use may not be intrinsically harmful. This is why although the article is focused on the overuse phenomena, I have attempted to add all relevant caveats. Thanks :) --E.3 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• not providing false balance You can simply start by saying that the relationship between digital media use and mental health is complex, or is multi-faceted, or has been studied from different angels. IMHO it is a bit odd to start the first sentence of the article describing compulsive behaviors, when you have not yet properly introduced the topics in its entirety. My point is not that you need to describe positive effects of digital media by all means, but rather that the structure of the article looks as though the original topic of the article was not Digital media use and mental health, but addiction or something like that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Thanks I have reworded the first sentence. The terminology of the title is the most difficult, as each paper seems to use different terminology – see mobile phone overuse which is predominantly called problematic smartphone use in most of the literature, video game addiction which APA calls internet gaming disorder and ICD calls gaming disorder. "Conceptual minefield" seems to be the most apt description I've seen in the literature – and I don't anticipate it being delineated by any expert body soon. So the title is intentionally broad so that the overview can be provided using the best sources available (regardless of the source terminology). --E.3 (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• internet overuse how is this defined in the literature?  Fixed Not standardised or universally recognised --E.3 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• curvilinear relationship wikilink?  Doing... Correlation_and_dependence#Correlation and linearity is the best I can find --E.3 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• to a 2018 UK parliamentary committee You mean, in a report to this committee?  Comment: no I mean that experts and NGOs reported this to the committee. The committee report simply stated that they said this overall --E.3 (talk)
• caveats of researchers caveats is not often applied to people. What do you mean exactly?  Comment: I mean if they published a caveat to their research, this is often misunderstood. Changed to "published by researchers" --13:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• This has led experts to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a unified phenomenon, with some calling to delineate proposed disorders based on individual online activity Italicised terms are vague and have to be rephrased.  Done --E.3 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The position of this section appears to be unusual. Perhaps you should include it in the subsection on Psychology, or in a later section on policy or applications.
•  Done I have retitled it to "assessment and treatment considerations", moving a little of the content, what do you think? --E.3 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but perhaps this section should be placed later in the article. I'll check later.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• as taking away digital devices may also have a detrimental effect I suppose you are referring to the fact that children unacquainted with technology will not be able to keep up with peers, but it isn't clear, it's too brief.  Done --E.3 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, in the first sentence you start by presuming that the article is about overuse, but the subject matter is broader than that.  Comment: I think assessment and treatment would usually refer to problematic use. Minor rephrasing at present. Most published data is about problematic use, or associations with mental health symptoms. --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• guidelines have been criticised in lacking evidence You mean, not being drawn from evidence?  Fixed to not being evidence based --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There is some limited evidence ... Limited evidence as to the effectiveness?  Fixed Yes --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• by a 2019 United Kingdom Please move this to the front of the sentence, so its is clear that you are not talking about the 2016 study.  Done --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There is preliminary evidence that mental health problems can be effectively treated through interventions delivered digitally This is quite relevant, can you expand?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)  Doing... - perhaps this can be a different section, will have a think tomorrow, but for the interim what do you think of the section title Assessment and treatment considerations? --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Concerns exist over the effects of media use on children Weasel phrase, please specify.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)  Comment: what do you think of simply naming it what it is without editorialising? --E.3 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• with stress showing the highest effect size Please clarify a bit for the layman that you mean reduction of stress.  Done --E.3 (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• of these issues For the purpose of clarity, please reiterate which issues you mean.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• many disciplines continue to work scholars in many disciplines continue to work?  Fixed —E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• risks and challenges Avoid challenges in this sense, per WP:WTW  Fixed—E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed deleted this part of the sentence as it is essentially duplicating the first part of the sentence --E.3 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• was described as the "highest quality" evidence What did the evidence prove exactly?

 Added*That study concluded that modest digital media use may have little adverse affects, and even some positive associations in terms of well-being. now in the text --E.3 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Radeski and Christiakis (the 2019 editor of JAMA Pediatrics) Please mention Christiakis' name from the first instance you mention him. Added --E.3 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph does not seem that relevant. How many sources discuss this in the context of the subject matter?

• quite a lot but Miller is a pioneer I've taken some content from Daniel Miller (anthropologist) and wikilinked it --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The University College London offers a free five-week course in relation to this, entitled Anthropology of Social Media: Why we Post, as well as offering other free e-books in relation to the issue less relevant, please delete. or move to new section external links.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Removed --E.3 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting information.

• Digital sociology, overlapping with digital anthropology and considering cultural geographies, explores "the ways in which people interact with and use digital media using both qualitative methodologies (such as interviews, focus groups and ethnographic research) Sentence is a bit messy, please split up in multiple sentences.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Better, but it isn't clear yet where both refers to.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• revealed that the level of religiosity has a significant effect weasel phrase, please specify.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still, not very clear.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)  Added --E.3 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• up to three hours more please include "... than higher income youths" Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Guardian Media Group The name of the newspaper is better known. Fixed --E.3 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It also investigates the various contextualisations of longstanding concerns in relation to young people's dependence on "these technologies I understand what you mean, but it reads a bit too complex for wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• They considered that these same vulnerable group... If researchers speculate on something without any evidence yet, write consider. If they've already found evidence, write something along the lines of found, discovered or a 1993 study showed, etc. Researchers noting something doesn't imply evidence either. Speculation by reliable sources can be included in a wikipedia article, but just be clear whether it's speculation or findings you're talking about.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• digital divide amongst the vulnerable Perhaps I misunderstand, but do you not mean digital divide between the vulnerable and the not vulnerable''?  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Three journalists First, you have to introduce the moral panic you're talking about first. You mention it briefly in the lead, but you never really explain what kind of moral panic occurred. Secondly, it isn't quite clear how search engines focusing on popularity lead to moral panic. It would seem you are skipping one or more variables here. Thirdly, stating that Google only uses popularity as a sorting criterion needs multiple good sources, since it flies against what is generally known about Google, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Removed I'm going to remove the journalists as they're not experts. There's a plethora of expert opinion referring to moral panic but I think I'll just leave it to the one internet addiction review in history and terminology. --E.3 (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: on rereading, it may be worth combining psychology and psychiatry as this article has evolved, as there isn't really a clear difference in terms of investigators as far as I can tell. Digital anthropology is clearly a separate field as is digital sociology. What do you think? --E.3 (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• I have put a combination of the two disciplines in my sandbox here for your thoughts. --E.3 (talk)

•  Doing...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the two sections should be merged.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Fixed merged --E.3 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review whether consider is the right verb here, as explained above.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• so far the neural mechanisms and biological underpinnings of excessive digital media use are unknown Please indicate timeframe, per WP:WTW. E.g.: "As of 2017..."--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --09:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

• This section is about responses from technology firms, which is not a discipline. So please restructure the sections.
•  Doing... Major restructure in latest edit, probably needs further discussion --E.3 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• whatever it takes to make (social media) safer online especially for (young people) I wasn't able to trace this quote in the cited source. Am I overlooking something?  Comment: it is in the video. He says "this" meaning "social media" and "youngsters" meaning "young people" --E.3 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)  Comment: for complete clarity, the quote is at 5:09 in the video, "what we have to do, is, of course, is, as I say, look at this from top to bottom, without any prejudice, we will do whatever it takes, to make this environment safer online particularly for youngsters." The interview began with discussions about a specific mental health case. As this is about the period that Facebook changed its stance in regard to government regulation, referred to in the same interview, I considered this a major quote by Nick Clegg. As you can see in this diff of social media addiction, "Facebook “has come out hard against the concept of an algorithm regulator, describing the proposal as "unworkable", "unnecessary" and "unprecedented".” one month prior. Admittedly, they are not directly inviting government regulation in regard to mental health at this stage as far as I know. --13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is the quote taken verbatim from the interview, or is it paraphrased using other words?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replaced "youngsters" with (young people) and "this environment" with (social media) --E.3 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are paraphrasing, don't use quotes; if you are quoting, quote word-for-word.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• incorporated it as "screen time" Please specify that it measures screen time.  Fixed —E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• forcing it In British English, isn't they more commonly used for organizations?  Fixed —E.3 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• has been investigated in some surveys Please specify for what it has been investigated.  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Two large investors Who?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much has changed now. I will have to review the article again. The copy-editing will be less than in the first reading. I'll try to be brief and as helpful as possible to not make the review too long.

• I'm happy for as long as you need and as many comments as possible. Many kind thanks indeed --E.3 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet addiction has been considered as a diagnosis since the mid 1990s That's a weasel phrase. If it has been established as a diagnosis, please say so. If it hasn't, leave it out. To consider means they're no conclusions yet. You might also want to use the word consider a little less: there are 29 instances in this article. Style is not part of GA though.

•  Fixed Yes I've removed a lot of the "considers" for style purposes. --E.3 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. I'll change this one to proposed, which seems to be consensus in related articles. Many propose it as a diagnosis, without universal agreement --E.3 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• inherent benefits Why would the Internet have inherent benefits? You will have to expand on that, if that's really what the study says.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It considered that ... Again, if this is a research finding, don't use consider.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• that continued established "concerns ... Can we leave out established?

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comments.

• The heading is a bit confusing. Normally, psychiatric associations refers to societies, etc. Can we use relations or perhaps add a word?

• changed to mental health relationships --E.3 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The report also observed ... Did the report discover such a curvi-linear relationship? If so, please say so.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• for patients with bipolar disorder may be a "double-edged sword" You left out the subject of the sentence. Probably an edit scar.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comments.

No comments.

No comments.

No comments.

No commments.

• rather than forcing screen time You hadn't mentioned yet that the guidelines mentioned above limit the amount of screen time.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• which have been criticised by some experts. Weasel phrase. Specify, or when not relevant enough, leave it out.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A philosophy journal Please specify.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They considered its possible amelioration by considering Please use a more specific term than consider, in both instances.

•  Fixed --E.3 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comments.

The lead is already quite good.

• Some experts have considered benefits of moderate digital media use in various domains You mean, they studied those benefits?  Fixed to investigated --E.3 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Please add more content from the sections about 1) treatment, and 2) response from firms. It doesn't have to be much.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)  Added --E.3 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are nearly done with the prose of the article, you have dedicated much time to it and you have improved the article much. What remains is to check whether all the subject matter has been covered in the article.

• A review study shows that many benefits of digital use are recognized in the literature, and that you currently cover these insufficiently. Most of the negative effects mentioned do seem to have been covered in the article.

• I understand the concern here. If we look at this review which I've included in the first few sentences, the benefits are in education, communication, exposure to new ideas, and social inclusion. Is this an effect on mental health? I don't know if I can draw that conclusion for the encyclopaedia --E.3 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• From reading scholarly literature about the subject, it seems to me you are covering the promotion of health too little. Just a first glance at the scholarly literature shows that many studies and reviews deal with it, such as this review. This does not mean that digital means of health promotion have not been reviewed critically. There is this, this, and this study by Lupton, which are cited widely. Other scholars have also been critical of digital health promotion.

• I also think this isn't really about health promotion in general, rather mental health. --E.3 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* These are some studies I found just looking at the first page of a Google Scholar search for "digital media" and "health". You might want to review whether you have covered all the important subjects, per GA criteria of sufficient broadness.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks. However the scope of this article is not digital media and health, that would be extremely broad, including electronic health records and the like. It’s digital media use and mental health. —E.3 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my search hasn't been refined enough. I'll have to review this again. Apologies.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more specific search came up with a number of subjects not yet covered. Sorry for the long list, but I can't ignore these—they are all covered in multiple sources.

• Several health domains which are effected by digital media are mentioned in this study.

• Yes but I already state what the study essentially concludes with more recent sources and reviews. --E.3 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I found several studies about online gambling and mental health. Here's one. I also found several on cyber-bullying, among which this one. You mention this briefly, but don't expand on it.

• I think we can include this under psychology and psychiatry, with wikilinks to these articles --E.3 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)  Added with the big restructure --E.3 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't covered multi-tasking yet. This and this study does.  Added with the big restructure --E.3 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, this review is cited over a thousand times, and this one 480 times, so we definitely need to look at them.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The first study is quite old. I try to use the reviews of reviews mainly and err to more recent reviews. All health effects are out of scope of this article in my opinion, and many reviews conclude the same thing, which is why I err to using more recent material and the systematic reviews of reviews, and focus on mental health associations. --E.3 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Is there a firm conclusion or additional text specifically from these older studies that you would prefer to include to the recent studies? The systematic map of reviews I think cites these. --E.3 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Added this article in terms of mental health showing the curvilinear relationship, passive vs active consumption etc. --E.3 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restructured the article quite boldly to delineate problematic use so that online gambling and cyberbullying can be expanded upon. What do you think of this new structure? I will change it back if we don't think its more readable. Thanks!--E.3 (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a lot of negatives here, but in general, the article can be quickly corrected, reorganized and approved as GA. It will need a bit of your time first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many less than anticipated, thank you very much, will have a further look in the days ahead :) --E.3 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I continue with the review, I'd like to know if there is any research about what positive effect digital media could have on health. The article reads as though only negative effects have been researched and found.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC) * Doing... The "goldilocks hypothesis" of moderate screen use not being intrinsically harmful was in a previous draft, and is very reliable, and is referred to in the lead. I believe it was under a previous draft under sociology. I'll put it back in. --E.3 (talk)[reply]
• One study shows the "goldilocks hypothesis" of "just right" screen time, with their own authors concluding that "moderate digital screen use may actually be contributing positively to wellbeing by enabling and empowering people to pursue their goals, be more active, feel connected with others and enjoy life". This does get repetitively cited in reviews. However the BMJ Open systematic review of reviews states there is no net health benefits proven scientifically as of Jan 2019. This expert and the study was in a previous draft cited under sociology but perhaps due to it being only one study it was deleted due to WP:DUE. What do you think? --E.3 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done The "goldilocks hypothesis" of moderate screen use not being intrinsically harmful was in a previous draft. I think this was deleted due to being a singular study or primary source. It is often cited, considered to be very reliable etc, but the benefits of digital media use overall appear to not have been conclusively scientifically proven, rather experts opinion. --E.3 (talk)

• Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to talk about the extensive evidence that digital tools (apps, web-based services, &c.) can be effective in the treatment of many mental health problems. See Batra et al., 2017, Hollis et al., 2016, Hall et al., 2012, Andersson et al., 2014 and Lau et al., 2017 for starters. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, could you give me a diff of a previous version that contains content from these sources? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are new sources I've found now. Or there's this diff from a while back with different sources. Bondegezou (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources from that diff are still in the current revision. --E.3 (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I've expanded this a little bit for now. There are several reviews out there, although personally I would avoid some of the open access content especially this one. The scope of this article as initially intended was to write about the relationship between digital media use and mental health rather than the treatment of mental health disorders using digital treatments. I think a brief overview is probably warranted here, but the released related articles such as video game addiction, or conditions such as major depressive disorder, etc could expand on the treatments, otherwise this may become very overlong. --E.3 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a general check for broadness later.

I am moving this content to the talk page here, so I can assess later whether it should be included. E.3 removed it this morning.

Organisational perspectives – Non governmental organisations, support and advocacy groups provide resources to people overusing digital media, with or without codified diagnoses,^[1][2] including from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.^[3][4] A 2018 OECD report that considered developmental and educational risks of the internet, noting its inherent benefits. It considered that "greater social media use is associated with poorer sleep and mental health", whilst noting the benefits of structured, limited internet use in children and adolescents. It also noted an overall 40% increase in internet use in school age children between 2010 and 2015, and that different OECD nations had marked variations in childhood technology use.^[5]

--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)  Added to the intro for the OECD report and also to the treatment for the NGO resources --E.3 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.3, there are a few comments from the second reading. After you have dealt with these, we can move to the lead and wrap it up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect, thank you, will do now, yes its been a thorough review process for such a difficult topic! --E.3 (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is very good now. Thanks for all your efforts and persistence. I am passing for GA now. Congratulations! Let me know if you do a DYK.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your persistence! It's been great. Yes I'll do a DYK, and I think I'll submit it to Wikijournal of Humanities (or Medicine if they think better there, but Humanities at this point, for further review! Thanks your help has been invaluable. --E.3 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed