Talk:Dyslexia/GA2

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

Comments from Keilana
I have some major concerns about this article on criteria 1 and 3 that I think would be best addressed in the GAR format - I definitely want to see it remain a GA and am happy to help as much as possible. Comments below. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 01:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The writing is not up to GA standard and it needs a solid copyedit.
 * The "Mechanisms" section does not adequately explain the connection to dyslexia and could be fleshed out with other theories, especially in terms of genetics.
 * "Epidemiology" similarly needs some expanding - more on non-alphabet languages is out there and should be included.
 * The research/society section is not really an adequate summary. There is extensive information on controversies in dyslexia research in the relevant article and none of it is included in the main article.

I've started collecting some sources that I think would be useful as well:. I hope these are helpful.

Comments from CFCF
I'm looking back and this article should probably never have passed GAN. That is a fail on at least 3/6 of the GA-criteria. I think the work involved in bringing this to GA is enough to justify demoting it. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 01:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all the very first sentence is incorrect in its definition. Alexia is not the same as dyslexia, and a large number of sources make that very clear.
 * Secondly the article is periodically nearly unreadable and backwards, it doesn't pass the criteria on quality of prose.
 * Lastly the image captions may explain what they refer to, but not why.
 * It also doesn't follow the reliable sourcing guidelines, and for whatever reason there is treatment info under the diagnosis section. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 01:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The ref says "Reading and language-based learning disabilities are commonly called dyslexia." and "A related problem is alexia (pronounced uh-LEK-see-uh), or an acquired inability to read. Unlike most reading disabilities, which are present from when a child starts to learn to read, people with alexia were once able to read but lost the ability"
 * Alexia is thus a subtype of dyslexia. Easy enough to fix Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Keilana and CFCF: It's typically most helpful if we have specific examples of prose that needs to be addressed. Can you show a few examples of where it is in most need of work? I tried to do some CEing yesterday but I imagine more is needed. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I've been super busy and with spotty internet the past few days. Here's a few examples of prose that needs addressing - if you need more or have questions, just let me know. I'm not the world's best writer by any standard, but a lot of these sentences are convoluted, confusing, and/or awkward.


 * "There are many published definitions which are purely descriptive or involve proposed causes that encompass a variety of reading skills, deficits, and difficulties with distinct causes rather than a single condition."
 * "While they do occur in people with dyslexia, reversal of letters or words, or mirror writing, is not included in the definition of dyslexia, and its relationship with dyslexia is controversial."
 * "Animal experiments and measures of gene expression and methylation in the human periphery are used to study epigenetic processes, both of which have many limitations in extrapolating results for application to the human brain."
 * "Deep dyslexia is caused by lesions that are often widespread and include much of the left frontal lobe; specifically, research suggests that damage to the left perisylvian region of the frontal lobe causes deep dyslexia."
 * It does now that I know which specific sentences you meant. I'll try rewording these sentences in a little while. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope this helps! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 03:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

per the advice of Doctor JoeE

 * 1) at the advise of the editor who gave it the GA pass I am proceeding with the #1 request, as it  is now at WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests he agrees with the ce --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just finished the c/e. However, there are 8 clarification tags remaining that need help from someone more versed on the subject. Hampton11235 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keilana&#124;Parlez ici ...the #1 point is partly done (@ Keilana and CFCF: It's typically most helpful if we have specific examples of prose that needs to be addressed. Can you show a few examples of where it is in most need of work? I tried to do some CEing yesterday but I imagine more is needed. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)...has done it), it will still get the a review at copy editors Guild.i am waiting for your response (I will then confer with Doctor JoeE again for your #2 point)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * points #2-#4 have been added (per references given and other references obtained)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * yes, I've been out and when I'm home I will comment further. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keilana&#124;Parlez ici...WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests has finished ce, and as previously noted your points have been addressed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will take a look tomorrow when I have less on my plate. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

More comments
Hey everyone, sorry this has taken so long. I managed to catch (another) nasty gastroenteritis and it's kind of hard to do a proper review while curled up on the bathroom floor.... Anyways, here are a bunch of comments - there are a lot of things that still need work with this article. It has some major issues that I think would best be worked on over a period of a few weeks/months after downgrading the article and then having a re-review down the line. I'm not yet done reviewing so I will be adding more comments re: accuracy and completeness as I read through the sources. Just ping me when you're done or if you have any questions - I start classes on Monday and might not be super great about checking my watchlist daily but I should see notifications. Keilana (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns with leaving it as a GA as the review progresses. The article is not that bad in my opinion. Yes agree with many of the concerns you have raised below but they are not that difficult to address. Lets give User:Ozzie10aaaa some time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care particularly either way - it's just a lot to get through. Keilana (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
It's taking me awhile but I'm reading through all of the sources. If you have any trouble accessing them, I have great journal access and textbook access and am happy to send you something.


 * I am concerned about the age of the following sources:
 * Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary - is there a newer edition?...RE that is the newest
 * Schott 2007 - I found a few more recent reviews that discuss mirror writing; does this article still represent the scientific consensus?...RE for the overall paragraph in regards to "mirror writing" I have decided to remove this source.
 * Nicholson et al. - It's cited in two more recent reviews...RE yes it is cited in other journals, and it is a good source
 * Encyclopedia of Special Education - there is definitely a newer edition that should be cited instead....RE Google books offers the 2007 version?
 * Medical Basis of Psychiatry - is there a newer edition?...RE that is the newest
 * Comer et al. - Does this still represent the scientific consensus?...RE (this question was already answered below)
 * Capellini 2007 - Ditto
 * Reid et al - Ditto
 * Cain 2010 - is there a new edition?....RE that is the newest (e-book came out the following year)
 * Levav 2009 - Ditto
 * Pennington 2010 - does this still represent the scientific consensus? Newer reviews on the subject exist....RE I believe this source adds to the article
 * Schumacher et al. - Ditto
 * Fletcher 2009 - Ditto
 * Cambridge handbook - newer edition?...RE that is the newest
 * Tonkonogy et al. - newer edition? Does this still represent the scientific consensus?...RE there is no evidence of a newer book
 * Brown - Ditto
 * Boller et al - Ditto
 * Yanoff Ophthalmology - there are 2 newer editions of this text; please cite the most recent edition....RE the newer source has been cited
 * Schuett 2009 - Are there newer reviews on the subject? Does this still represent the scientific consensus?...RE this is 2009 Nature review (a high impact factor)
 * Schulte-Korne 2010 - Ditto
 * Is there a newer edition of the Blackwell book?....RE that is the newest


 * I am concerned about the following primary sources:
 * Lyytinen et al. - a quick pubmed search shows it cited in a review article, is this a viable replacement?....RE a pubmeb search of this author/2009 review not primary
 * Friend et al. - Ditto
 * Beeson et al. - Ditto
 * Jefferies et al. - Not only is this older and a primary source, it's only cited in a few articles since its publication, none of which are reviews. I'm not sure it should be included....RE has been changed with new reference
 * Hu et al. - older and a primary source; it's cited in 19 articles, several of which are reviews that could be better replacements....RE has been changed with new reference


 * I have other concerns about the following sources:
 * Why are we citing the Alabama Dyslexia Association? Is there not a more reputable organization to cite?.....RE that is the website it was offered on, and the citation asks for the Website.
 * Is there a DOI for Klingebiel et al.?....RE have changed to a new reference
 * The British Dyslexia Association citations for screening and assessment seem to be duplicated....RE it is fixed to one reference now
 * Van Orden is super old and for some reason, not in PubMed, which makes me concerned that the journal it's in isn't reputable. I'm also getting a 404 error for the DOI link. Please fix this - I would recommend just replacing this source as the easiest course of action.... RE this sentence is supported by two additional sources (removed the source in question)
 * Similar problems with Ralph et al - unless it's the only case of its kind not covered in any reviews I don't see a reason to include this source specifically....RE have removed as advised
 * Schnepps and the Wired source need a full citation. This is also a classic who issue that should be rectified....RE both now have full citations now
 * psychologydictionary.org is not an acceptable source....RE agree have changed
 * Comer 2011 (Psychology Around Us) is not an acceptable source....RE why is this not acceptable?
 * Britannica as a general encyclopedia is not an acceptable source....RE agree have changed


 * This is just a nitpick but I'd really prefer it if the citation style were consistent throughout. I really don't care what citation style you use, but it looks better and is easier to navigate when it's consistent....RE you indicated the word just a nitpick does this mean it is optional or not?
 * There are lots of capitalization etc. errors in the citations - someone should go through and make sure names and titles and such are capitalized when appropriate....RE have gone through capitalizations
 * I would classify this as a non actively researched area of medicine. While I agree that we should update primary sources with reviews a little leeway WRT WP:MEDDATE should be given. Of course if their are newer high quality secondary sources then happy to seem them updated aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely some leeway is appropriate - hence why I'm asking if they still represent the scientific consensus. Obviously if there isn't a newer review or one of equal quality then it's all good. Keilana (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Phrasing

 * I'm not sure dyscalculia can be glossed adequately as "problems with mathematics" (lead); I think a better solution here would be to say dyscalculia (difficulty with understanding and manipulating numbers).
 * How about difficulty with numbers? We want to keep the lead using simpler English Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Difficulty with numbers sounds good. Keilana (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is separate from reading difficulties due to poor teaching, or hearing or vision problems." (lead) - this is awkwardly phrased.
 * Have adjusted the wording slightly. Yes simpler English sometimes sounds a awkward. But my possible is at least in the lead we need to keep it simple. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a hard line to walk. It sounds a little better now. Keilana (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Completeness & accuracy

 * I would like to see summaries of dyslexia definitions, not just the 2 quotes there right now....RE could you give a example to be clear in what to place(in the article),thank you


 * Keilana&#124;Parlez ici I have finished with the above request ( all 40 points),as well as the original points raised, there is one "clarification" I am requesting, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For some reason this ping didn't work - will take a look over this week. Keilana (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Remaining issues
In my first comment I stated that the images bear no relevant captions, this have not been improved. Each image should have a caption that explains why it is relevant to the article and why what it depicts is relevant. CFCF  💌 📧 21:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * have added more information in captions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Closure
If issues have been addressed, should we close this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * have answered (and should there be anything else, would address it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this article for the first time, and I'm afraid I see a serious problem here. I was initially puzzled by the discrepancy between defining dyslexia as a learning disorder in the first sentence, and then later talking about acquired dyslexia.  Trying to make sense of that, I finally figured out that there is substantial inconsistency in the way the term is used in the literature.  Some sources use it to mean inability to read for any reason (with normal intelligence), and distinguish between "developmental dyslexia" and "acquired dyslexia"; for other sources the term "dyslexia" is essentially synonymous with "developmental dyslexia" and therefore they define it as a learning disability.  ICD 10 defines dyslexia to include both developmental and acquired (alexia) forms; DSM 5 does not define dyslexia at all, justifying this by the inconsistency of usage in the literature. Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ICD 10 /F81.0 for developmental dyslexia excluding dyslexia and alexia ...and 48.0 for dyslexia and alexia --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that actually makes it even more confusing. Looie496 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * any text-wise remedy I would most certainly be willing to adjust (fix w/ reference), I'm going over text again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The basic issue is that the first sentence defines dyslexia as a learning disability, but later parts of the article refer to "acquired dyslexia". That obviously doesn't mean an acquired learning disability, it means an acquired inability to read.  My suggested solution is to remove the term "learning disability" from the first sentence, and then perhaps add a brief Definition section, explaining that sources differ in what they mean by dyslexia, referring specifically to the way DSM 5,  ICD 10, and the NIH deal with it. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This problem seems fixed now, and with that I support closing the review (and maintaining GA status). Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I closed it? and updated the articlehistory template? But the instructions weren't great so if I screwed it up, please let me know/help fix it. Keilana (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)