Talk:Postpartum depression/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * Is it reasonably well written?
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "Among men, in particular new fathers," - do men have "Postpartum depression" when they are not new fathers?
 * "Postpartum depression occurs in women after they have carried a child, usually in the first few months" - this sounds like the pregnant women can experience Postpartum depression after she has been pregnant a few months but hasn't given birth.
 * "begins within 4 weeks and lasting up to 6 months after giving birth. - should be "and lasts"
 * "Plus, most women experience profound lifestyle changes with their first pregnancy, yet most do not suffer PPD." - uncited. The "plus" is informal wording that is not encyclopedic.
 * The structure of the article is unclear. The section headings seem arbitrary, some of the sections containing relatively unimportant information.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a(references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR)''
 * There are tags that need to be remedied
 * There are statements that need sourcing.
 * Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
 * Some statements seem like OR (see below)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Postpartum Exhaustion (PPE) - is there evidence that this is significantly related to Postpartum depression? - if so it needs sourcing
 * PPD and the "baby blues" - is this supposed to be a differential diagnosis?
 * "Nutrition" section seems like it is giving advice.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * e.g. there is inclusion of a large section based on one study
 * Evolutionary psychological hypothesis - is overemphasized - there are other proposed causes


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:


 * It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with captions):
 * Some appropriate images could be found for the article.
 * Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Comments
 * "Symptoms"
 * This is mostly sourced to The Boston Women's Health Book Collective: Our Bodies Ourselves, pages 489–491, New York: Touchstone Book, 2005 - Why not to the DSM? Why are some of the symptoms unsourced?


 * "Risk factors"
 * This section contains too many statistics that should be summarized.
 * "These factors are known to correlate with PPD. "Correlation" in this case means that, for example, high levels of prenatal depression are associated with high levels of postnatal depression, and low levels of prenatal depression are associated with low levels of postnatal depression. But this does not mean the prenatal depression causes postnatal depression—they might both be caused by some third factor. - this is unnecessarily complex.
 * "In contrast, some factors, such as lack of social support, almost certainly cause postpartum depression. (The causal role of lack of social support in PPD is strongly suggested by several studies" - What is difference about the studies that they "almost certainly" show cause?
 * The table is not useful because it doesn't give the statistical significance of the differences in income. Instead, it leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions.


 * "Causes"
 * Some statements need citations.


 * "Evolutionary psychological hypothesis"
 * This section contains several citations that need to be made into inline citations (the primary style in this article).
 * Section contains Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
 * Also, it is very hard to understand. - I think it could be summarized into just a few sentences.
 * "If ancestral mothers did not receive enough support from fathers or other family members, they may not have been able to afford raising the new infant without harming any existing children, or damaging their own health (nursing depletes mothers' nutritional stores, placing the health of poorly nourished women in jeopardy)." - this sentence has no citation and sounds like OR
 * Section contains both Parenthetical referencing and footnotes. Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.


 * "Effects on the parent-infant relationship"
 * Uses parenthetical citing style and improper bolding and seems like OR.


 * "Attachment study"
 * This section is apparently based on one study and goes in to much detail.
 * Gives WP weight to this one study.


 * "Nutrition"
 * This section seems to much like giving advice.

[I'm going to skip some sections and will address them later, if necessary]


 * Psychosis
 * Section is contradictory.
 * Postpartum psychosis is a separate mental health disorder which is sometimes erroneously referred to as postpartum depression.
 * The opening sentence of this article says: "Postpartum depression (PPD), also called postnatal depression, is a form of clinical depression which can affect women, and less frequently men, typically after childbirth. - clinical depression is linked to Major depressive disorder


 * Suggested organization: (based on Major depressive disorder
 * 1) Symptoms and signs
 * 2) Causes
 * 3) Diagnosis
 * 4) Prevention
 * 5) Management
 * 6) Prognisis
 * 7) History


 * I will put this on hold for seven days. Please feel free to contact me with questions or suggestions.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment
 * As a medical article, the sourcing falls under the purview of WP:MEDRS. Currently, it uses several primary sources that could and should be replaced with secondary sources. A Pubmed search of "postpartum depression" reveals over 500 review articles on the subject. From 2011 alone, there's, , , , , , , (among others) that look like they would have useful information. I think the sourcing needs to be improved. Sasata (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. (I just wore out before I got to that.) Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a huge amount of work needed on this article to bring it to GA criteria, and no one is working on the article. Therefore, I am failing the nomination. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)