# Talk:Body image disturbance

Srobodao84 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC) its a common mistake; body dysmorphic disorder is an OCD disturbance with specific features. Body image disturbance is a common anorexia symptom (also present in other stress-related disease)

Srobodao84 if it's a really common mistake perhaps there should be a brief mention somewhere in the article to explain the difference. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Good Idea, thank you @Dodger67 Srobodao84 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Body image disturbance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I just submitted osteogenesis imperfecta to GAN, and even though QPQ is not a necessary part of this process, do try to do it when I have time, so I will be reviewing this article within the next week.
Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Srobodao84: I read your article and copy-edited part of it. I would say right now a few things jump out at me. For one thing, the article seems very anorexia nervosa-focused, which I suppose can't be helped, but it does make me wonder as a reader how BID interacts with other eating disorders, especially very different ones like binge eating disorder which get a passing mention. Given that people with BED tend to be obese, I wonder how that changes their experience of BID? Especially the bullet point negative body-related thoughts such as "I'm fat" or "my thighs are huge" feels anorexia/bulimia nervosa-only to me. I feel like at least § Characteristics needs clarification as to what relates to what disorders. The other thing I notice is that image captions are not very descriptive. Why a photo of Hilde Bruch? Is she a particularly important scholar? I assume so as you extensively quote her—if so, mention her contributions and more about her under her image. The "hoop training session" is perplexing and needs an explanation of what this actually entails and what is depicted. I can only guess. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Srobodao84: Ahead of schedule, I've completed my copyedit. I tagged quite a few inline problems—most frequently you write in a WP:DATED way, using words like "new" or "recent" when we are meant to Wikipedia:Build content to endure. I went ahead and made the article's headings follow MOS:SECTION for you, they often redundantly referred to the article title or to a higher level heading. I'm afraid that I cannot pass your article as a GA at this time, but will give you some time to make corrections to it before failing the article according to the GAN criteria. Fixing the places I added inline tags, and addressing my earlier comment based on the first half of the article, should put you well on your way. However, this process is meant to wrap in a week, so if you don't have time to commit the time I'll have to fail it. I think the article is quite good, mind you, much better than a lot of medical articles here. You're clearly an expert. But the GAN criteria aren't the "Quite Good Article" criteria. 😉 If you've no time to make the requested changes, you can do so in the months to come and then re-submit to GAN as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto i will try to do my best in these days...can i have one more week? Srobodao84 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Srobodao84: I'd say that that's fine given how quickly I completed my review. I'm willing to WP:IAR if you are. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto
I am. But try to take a look at today's changes Srobodao84 (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Improvements
@Psihedelisto:
I took a morning to sort out the article. I added a more historical first part. Perhaps in this way, Hilde Bruch's introduction appears more pertinent. I also tried to explain better the part about the new treatments
Tell me if I went in line with your directions. Thanks Srobodao84 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I am pleased to pass this excellent article as a WP:Good article. Further improvement of the article could possibly be had by expanding its § Prevention, as well as handling the minor criticisms in this review. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Very well formatted citations. Only the format of the 35th citation includes an obvious error: the website is written as www.icd10data.com instead of the name of the website as expected. That'd be very easy to fix.
B. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 
The author of this article is clearly a subject matter expert and based the article on WP:MEDRS sources.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
I think the article is greatly improved by the section Srobodao84 added about BID in binge eating disorder, and now believe that the coverage is very broad across a wide variety of eating disorders, unlike when I first read it.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

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

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

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Although there are large sections without images, there are no appropriate images, free or even non-free, for those sections. File:Virtual-reality-woman.jpg needed to be reviewed by me and switched from the claimed license to CC-0, but it is free. The other images are fine.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
The file File:Hoop training.png could still use a better caption explaining what is shown and what this therapy entails, but that is not reason enough to fail on this criterion as the other images have suitable captions and even this caption isn't very bad.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: