Talk:Dyslexia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Review from Bluerasberry
I compared the content in the sections of this article to what is expected to be included per Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles. Currently, this article has no sections for prevention/screening, outcomes/prognosis, or society and culture. If these sections where in the article, I think "testing" might be an appropriate replacement for the screening section, which could complement the following "diagnosis" section. I think it would be right to include something about whatever testing procedures exist to screen or test for this condition. In the outcomes section, something ought to be said about the kind of life a person with dyslexia can expect. Is this a major disability, a minor inconvenience, or something in between? What is most common? For the society and culture section, I think that something should be said about social stigma of the condition and the culture of the population with dyslexia. It is likely that persons with this condition share the common experience of having a period of frustration in school. There could be some list of depictions of dyslexia in popular culture, such as Taare Zameen Par.

In the "signs and symptoms" section the "language" subsection talks about the difficulties of learning different languages but makes no connection to how this is relevant to dyslexia. The connection should be made. Likewise the "mechanism" section talks about the mechanism of learning language, but does not connect this concept to dyslexia and it should explicitly do so.

The "management" section shows a "dyslexia typewriter" but does not explain what this is. The source cited does not explain either. Somehow this picture should be explained.

I checked nothing other in this review than to see if the article contained the content required by MEDMOS. This is item 3 of the Good article criteria. To pass GA, someone else should check the other items. If either the missing content can be added or someone can explain why it should not be added, then I would endorse a pass of this article for item 3 of the criteria.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will immediately look at possibly adding an additional section as you have indicated above. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

1. I have added sections as per your suggestions on testing, prognosis and a sub-section on society.

2. I have deleted the typewriter (which was a special adapted device for dyslexics, in favor of the Open Dyslexic font image with reference)

3. as a whole I think, im generally covering what you stated above, having said that if for any reason, we need more effort I will add information, references and images were they are expected to be, I thank you for taking the time to have given me the above analysis, do not hesitate to further any information you deem fit, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick side note: GAs don't have to comply with MEDMOS.  But if you can find good information on those subjects, then I think that would be great.  For ==Prevention==, I would add it only if there is something that can be done.  "Lots of people have ideas, but probably none of it works" would not be worth including.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you, that is a very good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes and updates. I endorse a pass for item 3 of the Good article criteria. Someone else should review for the other items.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  Blue Rasberry  I thank you for your endorsement and gracious manner in this review, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Review from Cas Liber
Taking a look now - sorry re delay. I copyedited as I went so please look at them and the accompanying edit summaries...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See Manual_of_Style/Lead_section - do we really need all the inline refs in the lead? I generally have none no hard and fast rules.....


 * No obvious copyvios detected (a good thing!)


 * Dyslexia is "a group of language-related conditions in which reading problems reflect impairment in the representation and manipulation of phonemes". - if this is a quote, we should include which body made it/defined it thus.


 * The orthographic complexity of a language (i.e., conventional spelling system) directly impacts how difficult learning to read the language is --> "directly" is redundant and should be removed.


 * ... posing other problems to dyslexic learners, as well as to theories of dyslexia - what problems to theories? This left me curious...can we expand upon this?


 * Avoid any 1-2 sentence paras by expanding or merging.

More later (I need to sleep now!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am looking to address all the issues you have stated, thank you,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok - just brushed my teeth - will keep looking for a few minutes (nearly midnight here in Oz) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) in regards to references, they can be taken out,it is my view the reader gets more info, however I can remove if you wish
 * 2) no copyvios
 * 3) this point has been fixed, the paragraph did not need to start with that sentence
 * 4) is redundant and has had parts removed
 * 5) point has been fixed
 * 6) will merge 2-3 sentences (as in the "test" section)


 * Right, last thing for tonight - Cerebellar theory of dyslexia is probably best talked about in the article rather than as a seealso link...


 * 7: new information (on cerebellum) added with reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * this is a case report and I wouldn't use it to support a general statement in the article, in fact MEDRS would insist we don't use this ref at all.


 * I will therefore replace it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 8: it has been removed, as there were two references for the sentence in question.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * An example of one of the problems dyslexics experience would be seeing letters clearly, this may be due to abnormal development of their visual nerve cells - this scans oddly in English - either replace the comma with a semicolon or change the "this" into a "which"....


 * 9:done changed to "which" --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Research has shown an increased proneness to the Stroop effect, used in tests for attention deficit, in individuals with dyslexia - am in two minds - medmos would say remove it but more about psychometrics than clinical effect - I can see a case for including it, but in this case I'd give authors and dates so folks know it's one study..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 10:best to go MEDMOS...and remove--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Err..but you've left the reference there....? It's a primary source and shouldn't be used to support a general statement....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I will change the reference as well.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Simplification
The lead was too complicated. I took a go at simplifying it. Some of the rest of the article could also use a bit of simplification. Used this 2012 Lancet review for some of it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3465717/ Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another good review  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

edits today
i am going through your changes today.
 * in this dif you renamed the ref badly. You called it "The Defining Feature of Dyslexia Is Reversing Letters" when the actual title is "Myth 17: The Defining Feature of Dyslexia Is Reversing Letters".  The way you named it, makes it appear that the source says the opposite of what it actually says.  I fixed that.
 * in this dif you replaced 2 primary sources with a review, which ~looks~ great.
 * most importantly, the new source does not support the content - the review is focused on auditory learning and plasticity at different points in development, and uses comparisons between music learning and language learning to illuminate that. the word "dyslexia" is mentioned in exactly one sentence which says nothing about word retrieval or naming things. This is exactly the kind of thing i mentioned above and this article should not pass GA review until every single new source is checked to make sure it supports the content. which is what I am doing. I am really really unhappy with this. Bad news.  I have removed the source and tagged this as citation needed.
 * on a much more minor level, in the citation, you provided a URL to the PMC version of the article and an access date. As I wrote in several edit notes, you don't need an "access date" field for a journal article or book (you can do it if you like, but we are busy and why waste time with something you don't need), and instead of providing the URL to the PMC article, it would be WAY WAY better to use the pmid and pmc paramters - the pmid is especially important for looking to see if the source is PRIMARY or SECONDARY, and if you use the pmc parameter, the template automatically provides the hyperlink to the free version, so you don't have to use the url field.   In any case,  I would appreciate it, and I reckon other members of project med, would appreciate it, if you at least used the pmid parameter,  thanks.


 * the new source DOES support the content if im not mistaken the individual above is incorrect the citation was replaced by Moxy.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * look at the dif - there i just provided again. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

✅ All ok now new source added...best the small problems are just dealt with over chastising each other. I will fix what I can as I have been doing with the sources as problems come up...but copy-editing is not my strong point.-- Moxy (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

as i mentioned above, I remain really concerned with the sourcing here. I understand the attraction of going for GA but the article actually has to be sound fundamentally - the sources need to be up to date and the content needs to reflect the sources. the criteria are what they are, but to me GA/FA are just bullshit shiny badges - what matters is that articles in WP provide great, well sourced content to readers. I will keep working through the sourcing you have provided. and to both oz and moxy, if you cite a book with chapters please cite the chapter. thx Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jyt, take a breath. This is not a constructive way to give criticism (especially if others are feeling "chastised" in the process) and improve the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - :::Yes we all need to tone it down a bit....About sources  I am also concerned that scholarly  sources by leading experts are begin replaced by web sites with less info that will be dead links in a few months.. (but not a big deal in the long run if the extensive  sources are in the article as Doc mentioned above). I will try to cite chapters but the tools we all  use dont do that. However  I will take the time to fill it out manually when I notice.-- Moxy (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * unfortunately individuals who have not contributed to this article, are now interested for some odd reason... in any event editors come and go however the articles stay and that's what is important to the reader. Hopefully the reviewer will take heart in the effort those who have contributed during the span of this article, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * oz you asked me to review this. i do appreciate the work you are doing a lot to bring this up to GA status.  at the same time, sound scholarship is essential and sourcing must be solid in WP, especially in a GA that is held up as a model for other articles.  I will keep working on this and will keep my harshness in check.  i apologize for being harsh.  but oz and moxy, you can review your own work and make sure the sourcing is sound. if you get to it before i do, all the better. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * anything of that nature, I can take to ANI after the review. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i don't know what you mean about going to ANI. anyway we will keep working through things here.  Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * as with all editor we here at Wikipedia, we welcome all individuals to edit and have a good time doing so for the benefit of the reader. And again we should not forget that is the most important thing the reader, as many individuals pass by here to get there information from us. Some editors of course may or may not have the same level of experience and therefore make mistakes, we all do, I make mistakes as well, but while this is a learning experience for all of us we must have patience will all, again I hope the reviewer enjoys the article. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

again, oz, i really appreciate the work you are doing to try to bring this to GA and to get us all involved. thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree thanks oz. GA review is a good opportunity for us to push each other to produce even better content :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thank you  Doc James  for taking of your valuable time, I am certain your guidance is correct--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but what the heck. Looking at the Ozzie10aaaa's comment above about editors "now interested for some odd reason". There is nothing sinister about this - and it's certainly not a matter for ANI. GA nominations go on a generalised page Good_article_nominations and often attract comment from outside editors interested in the topic. In fact, it's the whole point of putting up the nomination for scrutiny. I commented for that reason, although I did edit in this area years back. I do, however, want to strongly second Jytdog's comments about primary sources and making sure the sources actually verify the statements cited. It's easy to get blinded to the overall picture by a linkfarm of references, and there's an understandable inhibition on dismantling stuff that seems well-cited. This is not blaming anyone currently editing; in fact the article inherited this problem from years back. It's nevertheless important that the sources be checked: just because they look academically respectable doesn't mean they're reliable citations. An example: "Auditory processing disorder is recognized as one of the major causes of dyslexia" (in the section Associated conditions. The citation goes to a primary paper "Entrainment of neural oscillations as a modifiable substrate of attention" that simply doesn't support the statement. It says at most that "mounting evidence points to dysfunctional oscillatory entrainment in dyslexia", but it doesn't mention the specific condition auditory processing disorder, much less say that it's recognized as one of the major causes of dyslexia. This kind of thing needs addressing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually reading up on this point today..can I get others to read over ...and see what they think. -- Moxy (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Moxy this looks like a very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks gordon. just to be clear, ozz did ask me to participate in this process.  And ozz again - it is great that you are rallying Project Medicine to improve this article. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

as per the request above two issues have been ✅, if for any reason there are any other issues we welcome them to finish this article process. thank you (note- several other issues that have been resolved are reflected on the article history page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am maybe a quarter of the way through the article, checking sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you dont use the page number parameter in the templates..instead you put them  outside the sources even for sources not used two time and are linked to a specific page?  Just wondering because the page numbers all over the page break up the flow for our readers even more then just the source. Should I fix all these or is the GA reviewer ok with this? -- Moxy (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * sure! if you want to cite the reference a second time, but cite a different page, you have to cite it separately instead of just being able to use the ref name.  In my view it is a good thing to use the ref name/repeat citation method: a)  so that readers can easily see what the most-relied-on sources are, instead of it looking like each source is used just once, and b) it saves clutter in editing view, when you can use just the ref name.  and by the way, several of the sources that are used just once are very good and I reckon that i will end up citing them again as I work through the rest of the sourcing.   there is no policy, it is pure preference, but that is why i do it.   Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ohh i see. Just making the point as someone with dyslexia...the refs make pages harder to read let alone and extra number. I normally just use the Sfn system when need be...maybe when all is done I will migrate to Harvard citations as its easier to read. I think I may write a bit about this at and get others to see if this should be mentioned at Manual of Style/Accessibility or at Manual of Style/Text formatting. I see this  problem is not mentioned anywhere...thus people have no clue its a problem. Just thinking of our readers like me who are dyslexic  and for general accessibility with the sources,-- Moxy (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ay caramba. i totally get that.  hm.    hm hm.  so is it better for you to have references be used once? Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not about using it one time its about the overlap onto the next word for me and others I would guess. Having two footnotes squares in the body of the text covers (blends over  would be a better description) even more of the next word for me. [1][2]five letters covered this way over just 2 and a bit with [1] this way .  All not a big deal not part of the GA review,,,just we do things in a different manner and I am trying to explain why it may be a problem here...again not a big deal overall.-- Moxy (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional review
At the request of I have reviewed this article as well. With the exception of one awkwardly-worded sentence (which I fixed myself), I see no significant problems. Changes suggested and made by other reviewers were entirely appropriate. In the absence of further objections or comments, any of the reviewers can close the review -- or I'll do it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE  thank you very much, I really appreciate it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)