Talk:Substance use disorder/GA1

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

Reviewer: Markworthen (talk · contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Review in progress. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Review completed. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  20:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * GA Criterion 1: Is it well written?
 * Criterion 1a: The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Explanation: There are several instances of imprecise prose. Verbosity is not a problem. Grammar can be improved. Spelling looks okay.
 * Here are some examples of murky prose:
 * Lead: "The number of deaths directly caused by drug use has increased over 60 percent from 2000 to 2015." - The phrase, "directly caused", should be explained.
 * Definitions: "Substance use may lead to drug addiction, drug dependence, or both, depending on the substance. Both substance abuse and substance dependence are distinct from addiction which involves a compulsion to continue using the substance despite the negative consequences, and may or may not involve chemical dependency." (emphasis added; footnotes and citations omitted) - The words used to describe alcohol and other drug problems have changed frequently over the past several decades, which has led to confusion and uncertainty. Authorities still disagree on how to best define the terms. We must therefore tread cautiously when we use these terms—if we use them at all. I suggest close adherence to DSM-5 definitions and descriptions since "substance use disorder" is a DSM-5 diagnosis. "Substance use disorder" is also a general term in the scholarly literature, but this article is (mostly) about the diagnosis.


 * Severity: "Some medical systems refer to an Addiction Severity Index to assess the severity of problems related to substance use." (citation omitted) - The term, "medical systems" is vague, as is the phrasal verb, "refer to". The Addiction Severity Index should be briefly described, especially since we do not have an article on it.


 * GA Criterion 1b: It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Explanation:
 * Lead section - Currently I would rate the lead section B-class (which is good!), although it will need to be updated as edits are made to the body of the article. ¶ I will offer a couple of suggestions to help improve the lead section (and other sections).
 * (α) "In 2017 globally 271 million people (5.5% of adults) were estimated to have used one or more illicit drugs. Of these 35 million had a substance use disorder." - This is important data to include, but I suggest clarifying that the 35 million number refers only to illicit drug use disorders, i.e., the number does not include alcohol use disorders.
 * (β) Be careful about "pointing words" (more formally, deictic words), such as demonstratives that are not clear without additional cues. The sentence, "Of these 35 million had a substance use disorder", is unclear because the reader does not quickly apprehend what "of these" refers to. One way to rewrite the sentence would be, "Of those 271 million people, 35 million (13%) had a substance use disorder."


 * Layout - The following aspects of the layout look very good: Short description; date style; Infobox; Images; Table of contents; See also; Notes and references; footer navbox; Categories. Further reading has a solid recommendation, but it should be updated since it was published in 2002.


 * Words to watch - I did not see a pattern of several or repeated words to watch, although this aspect of our style guide is worth reviewing because we often legitimately use words to watch in other contexts, e.g., social media, email, blog posts, even academic articles. In other words, we often don't realize we are using a word to watch. (When I write, "we", I include myself.)


 * List incorporation - Very good.


 * GA Criterion 2: Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * Criterion 2a: It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:


 * Criterion 2b: All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Explanation: For example, this statement, while well-written and important, needs a citation to a reliable source: "Substance use may be better understood as occurring on a spectrum from beneficial to problematic use. This conceptualization moves away from the ill-defined binary antonyms of "use" vs. "abuse" towards a more nuanced, public health-based understanding of substance use."
 * Another example: I found a promotional link (diff).
 * Criterion 2c: It contains no original research:
 * Note: I did not see any obvious instances of original research, but as editors continue to expand and improve this article, please be on the lookout for something I might have missed.
 * Criterion 2d: It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Note: I did not see any obvious instances of copyright violations, but as editors continue to expand and improve this article, please be on the lookout for something I might have missed.


 * GA Criterion 3: Is it broad in its coverage?
 * Criterion 3a: It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The article needs expansion on several fronts, e.g., causes (epidemiology), screening tools, assessment (not present currently), and more.
 * Criterion 3b: It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):


 * GA Criterion 4:Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:


 * GA Criterion 5: Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:


 * GA Criterion 6: Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * Criterion 6a: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Criterion 6b: Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Overall: I would classify this article as C-class, but close to B-class. (I realize it is rated B-class by three out of four WikiProjects.) It needs expansion; improved prose; consistency and clarity regarding terminology, and others. Regarding clarity regarding terminology, here is one example: the Signs and symptoms section begins, "Addiction is a brain disorder ...." The article is about substance use disorder but the section discusses addiction. Admittedly, the English Wikipedia is not consistent with how we use various substance use disorder terms, although this is understandable given relatively quick changes in terminology even over the past 16 years and the lack of consensus regarding terminology among clinicians, researchers, journalists, policy-makers, and the public.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Note: Again regarding terminology, the Addiction and dependence glossary is well-written and mostly accurate (IMHO, of course). Perhaps we (editors across WikiProjects interested in this general topic) can reach consensus regarding terminology, including what the various terms mean, which terms we should use, and which terms we should avoid using, and then begin to edit relevant articles to (eventually) achieve greater consistency and improved comprehension.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Note: Again regarding terminology, the Addiction and dependence glossary is well-written and mostly accurate (IMHO, of course). Perhaps we (editors across WikiProjects interested in this general topic) can reach consensus regarding terminology, including what the various terms mean, which terms we should use, and which terms we should avoid using, and then begin to edit relevant articles to (eventually) achieve greater consistency and improved comprehension.