Talk:Thought broadcasting/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has substantial MEDRS issues. While the "secondary sources only" clause of MEDRS is sometimes flexible under circumstances of rare phenomena or proper contextualization, something very common should not be cited heavily to case studies (source 14/18, used four times to support things like controversial treatment claims), predatory journals (sources 13/16, the same article used twice), popular science magazines (source 8, used twice), old sources (e.g. source 19, used to cite strong and repeated claims about prognosis), and more generally a substantial number of primary studies (e.g. sources 7 and 17, used five times between them). There are also source-text integrity issues, especially problematic when used to justify treatment claims -- In a case study, electroconvulsive therapy was proven effective is both not a claim that can be made in wikivoice based off a case study, and not what the case study says (it focuses on cognitive-behavioural therapy, and the coexistence of ECT isn't really considered). There are also scope issues, e.g. the discussion of the historical understanding of 'first-rank symptoms' is very brief, even though this concept and the ways it's been in and out of favour over time is core to any discussion of thought broadcasting. The very strong claims being made here about treatment, etiology, and prognosis aren't supported by the kinds of sources used in this article. Vaticidalprophet 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought broadcasting is far from being a very common phenomena, in fact, ...thought broadcasting has been systematically neglected in the literature... because it's a rather atypical delusion. There's already a scarcity of sources and if only secondary ones are allowed, then the article will be reduced to a mere stub. Regarding the scope, the first-rank symptoms are indeed a must mention, but its main relevance to the article is the fact that the delusion is included there, not much else can be said. The statements about treatment, causes and prognosis, apart from that one case study, are very normal and are well supported, Thought broadcasting is observed more often in schizophrenia with poor prognosis → Taylor reported that the [first-rank] symptoms occur most commonly in [schizophrenic] patients with poor prognosis... (Oxford Academic), When individuals with schizophrenia present comorbid obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS), treating those symptoms helped reduced the delusion. → [In schizophrenic individuals] The treatment of OCS resulted in the complete resolution of thought broadcasting (Elsevier). These are just two examples. I'm glad I contributed as a rubber-stamp quick-fail for your little User:Vaticidalprophet/Reviews log. With that being said I will replace the predatory journal and look for any text-source integrity. I will also, in a last effort, go to my National Library to look for any sources on this, otherwise the article should be an exemption of the 'second source only' clause. SpaceEconomist 192 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this subject from offwiki scholarship, which is why I noticed this on the list so quickly and noticed the state of the sourcing so quickly. It is completely possible to write on this subject with entirely secondary sourcing; whether this should be in a stand-alone article or covered under the core article on first-rank symptoms is another question to be sorted out somewhere else, though if you believe it's not possible to write a non-stub article using such sourcing, that may be understood as implying the latter. If you believe the current sourcing in the article should be suitable for GA, I'd recommend broaching that on WT:MED. Vaticidalprophet 20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already spent a considerable amount of days looking for sources online and apart from a pair of prospective and case studies, there weren't scholarly articles specifically about this type of delusion, just some passages in studies about schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder. If you are that certain that is entirely possible to write about this with only secondary sourcing, please do tell me where I can find such material. Also, there's no first-rank symptoms article. Sorry for the earlier comment about your log, your work is actually quite impressive. SpaceEconomist 192 22:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]