Template:Did you know nominations/Impulse control disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 23:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No progress in resolving outstanding concerns after 2 weeks

Impulse control disorder[edit]

  • Reviewed: The article that the nominator has reviewed

Created/expanded by Zoono92 (talk). Self nom at 23:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Article expanded from ~1160 characters to ~18000, so thoroughly sufficient
  • Cited inline
  • Hook sufficiently brief
  • No QPQ review needed, as use has 2 prior dyks


  • The article has two images down near the bottom. Could you integrate them earlier in the article and add a caption to the "pyromania/blue container" image? Chris857 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh THANK YOU SO MUCH for the review! Appreciate it a lot! =)... about the images I added the pyromania one with the text but I chose to remove the nail biting one since it is not a part of impulse control disorders anymore... hope that's okay? please let me know, and a Big thank you again!

Zoono92 (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg 5x expansion checks out (based on earlier versions of the article that were trimmed of former copyvios and other problematic content); hook fact is interesting and supported.
The article would benefit from thorough copyediting. Also, I have some concerns about possible close paraphrasing from cited sources; a good copyedit might (or might not) be sufficient to address this. Close paraphrasing needs to be resolved before this goes to the main page. For example, I compared the article with this online source that is used rather extensively, and I find a few instances of wording that is a bit close to the source, both in choice of words and in overall structure. To see what I'm talking about, compare the choice of words and structure of presentation in the following snippets:
  • Article: The disorder of Internet addiction has only recently been taken into consideration and has been added as a form of ICD. It is characterized by excessive and damaging usage of internet with increased amount of time spent chatting, web-surfing, gambling, shopping or exploring pornographic web-sites. Excessive and problematic internet use has been reported across all ages, social, economical and education range. Although initially stereotyped only in males, increasing rates have been also observed in females.
  • Source: Internet usage disorder, also referred as Internet addiction or problematic Internet use, has been proposed as an explanation for uncontrollable and damaging use of the Internet, and has only recently begun to appear in the psychiatric literature. People with problematic Internet use often report increasing amounts of time-spent web surfing, gambling, shopping or exploring pornographic sites. ... Problematic Internet use has been reported in any age, social, educational, and economic range. However, while previous studies tended to stereotype the classical Internet addicted patient as a young introverted man, recent investigations have showed increasing rates of this disorder among women...
  • Article: Compulsive shopping or buying is characterized by an frequent irresistible urge to shop even if buying is not needed and\or cannot be afforded. Studies have reported the prevalence of Compulsive buying in the U.S. population to be between 2%-8% in the general adult population, with 80%-90% of these cases being females. The onset in believed to occur in late teens or early twenties and the disorder is believed to be generally chronic.
  • Source: C–I shopping, also referred as compulsive buying, is characterized by maladaptive preoccupations or impulses to buy or shop that are experienced as irresistible, intrusive and/or senseless, accompanied by frequent episodes of buying items that are not needed and/or that cost more than can be afforded. ... A recent study on C–I shopping disorder estimated the prevalence of this disorder to be between 2% and 8% of the general adult population in the US; 80% to 95% of those affected are female. Onset occurs in the late teens or early twenties, and the disorder is generally chronic.
--Orlady (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This article is on my watchlist, has been for a long time, but I've not been active this summer and did not notice this nomination until just now. There are multiple issues throughout this article, the most serious of which is the lack of WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, resulting in a good deal of misinfo, UNDUE, and speculation and hypothesis based on single case studies and non-review articles. There are also MEDMOS, MSH, MOS issues and a real need for a copyedit, evident throughout. We should never run medical articles on the mainpage that are based on faulty sourcing ... review articles are available and they should be used.

Significantly for DYK, the hook is not cited to a MEDRS-compliant source-- it is cited to a case report, and based only on five cases ... a review source would be needed to make the sort of claim this hook is making. I suggest the DYK be closed as there are too many problems here to address ... I've been through only a small percentage of the sources. The entire articles has issues, but at minimum here, hooks should be cited to reliable sources, and in medicine articles, that kind of hook requires a review source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Sandy, the MEDRS templates that you placed on the article may send the wrong message. They are likely to scare the article creator(s), but they don't very effectively convey the concerns. To the superficial observer, it would appear that you are questioning the credibility of a number of peer-reviewed journals, when I think in fact that your concerns are largely with the way that individual studies have been described or interpreted in the article. For example, I believe your concern with the citation to "Cognitive-behavioral therapy for intermittent explosive disorder: a pilot randomized clinical trial" would go away if the article said nothing more than "One clinical study found that cognitive-behavioral therapy may have value in the treatment of intermittent explosive disorder". Is there some other way you could describe your concerns that would be more effective in helping the article creators understand what the problems are? --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Referencing issues unaddressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)