Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Digital media use and mental health/archive1

SG Review

 * The entire paragraph beginning with "In 1890, 1 percent of U.S. households owned at least one telephone, while a majority did by 1946 and 75 percent did by 1957" appears to be original research, as does the next paragraph. In what source is this data connected to mental health ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why only US households, anyway? Digital media are used worldwide. I figure that the claim wants to contextualize the article topic, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has more than doubled in readable prose size since its featured version, meaning at least half of the article has not been vetted in a content review process. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS-y stuff

 * Re the hatnote at Screen time, this article is not a summary of major depressive disorder or any section of it. If MDD is mentioned in this article, it should just be a wikilink.  Some of the others may be mis-hatted as well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually the hatnotes are out of control throughout. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (They were at the time of promotion as well.) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Define "umbrella review" or link to something. Ditto for "meta study". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the citation style? Some use vauthors, others use last, first. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Due weight ?

 * Why is this included ? Brian Solis, a digital analyst and anthropologist, stated in 2018, "we've become digital addicts: it's time to take control of technology and not let tech control us".[128] Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS concerns

 * Can't tell what this wants to be, so unsure it is MEDRS compliant. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably not MEDRS compliant because it's a report by a nonprofit professional organization that does advocacy work. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A survey of 84 people ... poorest methodology, unconvinced this bipolar info should be included: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any secondary reviews citing this study ? "In February 2019, experimental psychologists Amy Orben and Andrew K. Przybylski published a specification curve analysis of data from the Monitoring the Future survey, the Millennium Cohort Study," ... that was four years ago, if it's relevant, it would be cited by someone by now.
 * Ditto for "In May 2019, Orben and Przybylski published a subsequent specification curve analysis in Psychological Science of three nationally representative samples from data sets including 17,247 subjects"
 * In this case, it gets worse. We find in the next section an entire paragraph sourced to two editorial comments about the Orben and Przy study ... again, too much original research here, where are the secondary reviews?  "The 2019 Orben and Przybylski study has been much cited, and influential in supporting the view that there is little evidence to link digital usage with negative mental health outcomes. The study attracted responses from psychologists Jean Twenge, Andrew B. Blake, Jonathan Haidt, and W. Keith Campbell. They accepted that they could reach the same conclusion if" ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And in general, any primary source in this article that is more than three of four years old is probably UNDUE or unworthy of inclusion if it hasn't by now been mentioned in a secondary review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A research study done on urban adolescents in China revealed ... a 2011 study. UNDUE; if not mentioned in a secondary study by now, dubious, and possibly overstated. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * More of same ... dated and concerned about peer review level: A 2017 UK large-scale study of the "Goldilocks hypothesis"—of avoiding both too much and too little digital media use[43]—was described as the "best quality" evidence to date by experts and non-government organisations (NGOs) reporting to a 2018 UK parliamentary committee. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A four-year-old primary study, sourced to CBS News!!! A study by The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health in 2019 showed a relationship between social media use by girls and an increase in their exposure to bullying plus a reduction in sleep and exercise.[52] If it's not mentioned in a secondary review by now, that's a problem. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another four-year-old primary study ... A US study done in 2019 found an association between social media and depression in adolescence Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Prose

 * Needs attention: One of the 2020 meta studies finding only a small negative association between social media use and negative mental health outcomes still described it as significant. ... why "still" and if they are referring to statistically significant, needs clearer language. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are jargon issues throughout; don't make the reader click out to find out what a term means (sample, nuanced evidence for a relationship between social media usage and flourishing). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And, I have no idea what this sentence means overall: A systematic review published in 2023 found there is nuanced evidence for a relationship between social media usage and flourishing, with the potential for this positive association to become stronger.[49] Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Unused sources
And about a dozen more from this year alone: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Social+media+and+mental+health&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=datesearch.y_1
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37721985/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37721985/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37721985/

General discussion
have you followed this article for long? I'm noticing a lot of the problematic content was added post-FAC; is there a version to revert to for repairing some of the damage? That wouldn't solve the datedness, but may be an improvement. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have not followed it for long at all. I came across it about a month ago and then put an FAR notice on the talk page shortly thereafter. I also haven't looked through the article history to know what version to revert to. Given that reverting would mean this is several years out of date (and already is per your unused sources list above), I think this probably will have to go to FARC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)