User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI

General things to know
Working in sandbox. When working in sandbox, editors have to think about what they will eventually do with the sandbox. If you are eventually going to want to delete the page, it is helpful to make sure no one else edits the sandbox. If you are the sole editor, when you are done with the page, and if you want to delete it, it will meet Criteria for speedy deletion, WP:U1. You just blank the page and put (delete by user request) at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it. You maintain control of the page at all times, and remind other editors they are not allowed to edit your user pages. If being the sole editor is not a concern, some editors authorize others to edit their sandboxes. I don't recommend that approach unless you know the editor well; things sometimes get messy. Another concern is the matter of attribution. If the work is all yours, you can simply cut-and-paste it later in to the article in articlespace; you wrote all the content, so you can cut-and-paste move it without concern for attributing the work of others. But if multiple editors write something, content should be attributed to each, which means the content has to be moved to mainspace via a Move (rather than a cut-and-paste copy), which preserves the article's editing history, and then the sandbox is left as a redirect. So you end up with lots of sandboxes in your userspace that are redirects. Things to think about in advance; if other editors want to be attributed-- rather than entering commentary on talk for you to edit-- draft space may be better.

General discussion
To see an example of why this may matter: Those stats show SandyGeorgia wrote 89% of the article. But she didn't. (When I am working up a Featured article, people who collaborate with me are happy to enter their suggestions on talk and let me make the decisions about what to add to the article. Many of my edits were actually suggested wording from other people.)  If you are concerned that someone show in the authorship, they should be encouraged to add content themselves after you have worked out the text on talk. If editors don't care about attribution, it can be easier to let one editor do the actual editing; the result is an article with a more consistent "voice". Just be sure to NEVER copy in someone else's suggestion without having first verified it is not a WP:COPYVIO or WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, because that will be on you :)
 * 1) Go to dementia with Lewy bodies
 * 2) Click on the history tab
 * 3) Click on page statistics
 * 4) Click on authorship, to get these stats


 * This is excellent, and the problem of tracking attribution is one that we have put a lot of thought into on the journal side, and we have been starting to adapt that framework for Wiki editing to have a way of tracking what is happening "outside" of Wiki (and also differentiating types of edits, rather than a byte is a byte). Here's a [link] to a GoogleSheet version. The columns on the left are all meta-data for tracking the project. The table is the guts of the tracking. Each column is a person, and each row is an activity. The document is shared with the whole team for maximum transparency, and gets reviewed together before submitting for review/publication. I would be up for porting a version of this over to Wiki if helpful down the road. Thanks for the heads-up about getting dinged for other people's WP:COPYVIO or WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE -- glad to not learn that the hard way! :-) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to put more work into it :) :) I'll tell you a story sometime about some of your work on Wikipedia that is unattributed ... I will look at that doc from my iPad later ... tired of sitting at computer typing for now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to put more work into it :) :) I'll tell you a story sometime about some of your work on Wikipedia that is unattributed ... I will look at that doc from my iPad later ... tired of sitting at computer typing for now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to put more work into it :) :) I'll tell you a story sometime about some of your work on Wikipedia that is unattributed ... I will look at that doc from my iPad later ... tired of sitting at computer typing for now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Eric, I'm comfortable in this example with you doing all the editing in your sandbox, while I make suggestions on talk. Good? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Also, notice that I am naming each discussion section differently; if you put repeat instances of the same heading on a talk page, the software doesn't know which section to send you to. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is outstanding! Very clear, and I am learning at each step of the way. I am completely on board with using this as a pilot for teaching others, too. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you like the approach ... I will soon reach my limit of typing for a bit, and have to move to the iPad. When we are done, we will go back and delete any editorializing that isn't needed here :)  Still working ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you like the approach ... I will soon reach my limit of typing for a bit, and have to move to the iPad. When we are done, we will go back and delete any editorializing that isn't needed here :)  Still working ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you like the approach ... I will soon reach my limit of typing for a bit, and have to move to the iPad. When we are done, we will go back and delete any editorializing that isn't needed here :)  Still working ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Useful tools and templates
Wikipedia template filling (also known as the Diberri/Boghog tool after its developers): User scripts, see User:SandyGeorgia/common.js
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi
 * See User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI below for why it matters
 * To use any of these helpful tools:

Gadgets Talk page templates:
 * 1) Create a common.js file in your own userspace (change my name above to yours and create the page)
 * 2) Follow the instructions at the userpage for installing the different tools to your common.js file
 * User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates standardizes date formats within an article
 * User talk:Ohconfucius/dashes.js fixes hyphens versus WP:ENDASHes vs. WP:EMDASHes (they are not the same :)
 * User:Headbomb/unreliable highlights unreliable sources in color
 * User:Evad37/duplinks-alt highlights duplicate wikilinks within an article
 * Helpful gadget to know the assessment of an article before you edit (why it matters at User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI)
 * 1) At the top of your screen when logged in
 * 2) Click on Preferences (get familiar with everything in there, although some of it is Horrid)
 * 3) Click on Gadgets
 * 4) Scroll down to "Appearance"
 * 5) Check the box next to "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation)"
 * 6) Save

Tools discussion
Eric Add any templates you may want in the long-term to the list above? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability and creating new topics
Before writing a new article, one should first determine that the subject meets notability. A lot of student editing could avoid being deleted if students and profs made this the first step in topic selection. The subject of an article must have significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Often, students choose sources that are not independent from the subject, or sources that do not directly mention the subject (that is, they try to tie sources to the subject with synthesis of multiple sources). Getting this right means understanding each piece: significant is not passing mention, independent is not a user-submitted bio, for biohealth content, reliable has to also meet Wikipedia's medical sourcing guideline (MEDRS), and in medical editing, using primary sources rather than secondary reviews (per MEDRS) is a frequent problem. Another problem occurs when one does not carefully investigate whether a topic is already covered under a different name. The search button on the left-hand side of the screen should be used liberally to check all potential names to see if the content already exists on Wikipedia. Yet another issue is that students often want to write too much (better grade :), not understanding how Wikilinking and red links are used to build the encyclopedia. New articles need necessary context, but they should not unnecessarily duplicate content that is already contained elsewhere, when a link to that article will suffice. And articles should not include off-topic detail; if an article does not yet exist on Wikipedia-- but you can determine that the subject meets notability-- it is OK to add a red link, and eventually someone will add that article. When adding a red link, just give the reader enough context to know what it is. And sometimes, even if a topic is notable, there may be so little that can be said about it that it can be worthwhile to determine if the content is better placed as a sub-section of a broader article. Creating a redirect from the subject title to the article where the subsection is will allow search engines to find the content. When creating a new article, the redirect button is in the toolbox at the top of the edit window. Determining whether and where to write content is an important first step, so that all of one's work is not lost if the article must be deleted. Determining if a topic is notable, and how to name the article, require an understanding of reliable sources.

Notability discussion

 * Content copied from User talk:Eyoungstrom on VMI notability:



Notability would be buttressed by the fact that there are three commercially distributed tests (at least) in that space, and there will be chapters describing them in graduate level textbooks on clinical assessment. ... Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notice that I copied this content from your talk page, with an edit summary that contains a link back to original source. This is required on Wikipedia whenever copying content; see Copying within Wikipedia. In the case of VMI, we have a notable topic.  But before deciding to write an article, we have to fire up Wikipedia's search engine on the left-hand side of the screen, using all the possible topic names (visuomotor integration, visual-motor integration, visual–motor integration, and visual motor integration) to make sure something isn't already out there.  Doing this will also reveal the number of places we will need to add links to the article once it is created.  Notice the difference in names with a hyphen and with an WP:ENDASH (some people's eyes can't see the difference, but faulty endashes drive me batty :).  Think obsessive-compulsive disorder (hyphen) which redirects to obsessive–compulsive disorder (the correctly used ENDASH).  The difference is explained at the WP:DASH article, and ENDASH is in the first thing in the line at the bottom of the edit screen, and you can click on it to insert it into text.  Depending on where we decide to place VMI (ie, what article name), we will have to have an ENDASH discussion.  We'll discuss that in Naming.  But we can write an article while we are still deciding where to place the content.  Are you comfortable with Wikipedia's search button, Eric? Would you like to poke around a bit with those four names to see what you come up with? You might even generate a list of articles to put at User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI, so we can make sure this new article is not an "orphan" when we create it, by linking to it in the existing articles that discuss VMI.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I learned about the protocol for attribution for copying only recently. I screwed up moving some student work over from Sandbox to Wikiversity, so it looks like I got the credit for the edit metrics at WMFlabs, and I didn't know how to document that it was coming from their sandbox. Is there a way for me to fix this? Neat about the avoiding "orphanage." I have been thinking about the same issue, framed as "maximizing utility," and my understanding is that it also improves SEO and discovery in searches. We have started getting systematic about doing this, looking for B class or better Wikipedia pages to link to in our Wikiversity articles. We have been using GoogleSheets to organize the list of links and comments as a table. Very cool to see how a skilled Wikipedian would approach the same task. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We need to explore the attribution problem (in reverse, where you were on the other end). I rarely go to email, but will do in this case ... later, tired now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, another note on checking those links ... yes, SEO. I have found articles linking to wrong medical conditions, and seen the pageviews soar after correcting them.  Lewy body dementia (LBD) is not dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB).  Fixing the links from other articles completely changed the metrics, and suddenly DLB is a popular article!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We need to explore the attribution problem (in reverse, where you were on the other end). I rarely go to email, but will do in this case ... later, tired now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, another note on checking those links ... yes, SEO. I have found articles linking to wrong medical conditions, and seen the pageviews soar after correcting them.  Lewy body dementia (LBD) is not dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB).  Fixing the links from other articles completely changed the metrics, and suddenly DLB is a popular article!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, another note on checking those links ... yes, SEO. I have found articles linking to wrong medical conditions, and seen the pageviews soar after correcting them.  Lewy body dementia (LBD) is not dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB).  Fixing the links from other articles completely changed the metrics, and suddenly DLB is a popular article!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing
Many problems with student editing would be eliminated if a) the Notability issue is addressed first, by b) providing a list of sources from which one plans to write. If students were required to present a list of sources BEFORE choosing a topic, much agida can be avoided. Here's an example from a class where almost every article needed considerable cleanup, and about half of their work ends up deleted because in the (overly plot summary) they added sources "about the condition" which never mentioned the film or book. More typical in the biohealth realm is a failure of editors and profs to understand what a secondary vs. primary source is, and in what limited instances it is OK to use a primary source.

Conclusion list of sources first, build from there! Confirm notability, and make sure content doesn't already exist somewhere.

Discussion sourcing
Klazomania provides an interesting example. At the time I cleaned this up after a class edited it, there were almost no sources. I have not checked for new sources or updated the article in years (a cleanup of that nature is exhausting, and I tend to just unwatch), but it was necessary to carefully cite a case report, because there was nothing else. I'm looking at a similar problem at habit cough, which I am working on in sandbox, but I despair, as the topic is fraught, with new consensus guidelines being controversial, and I will have to resort to using an editorial from one of the Consensus panel members. We should be fine at VMI. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Intriguing! I see ways we can connect work flow here. I have been teaching students to use Zotero, and then also teaching them how to identify high quality sources. I have a slide deck that I use to teach the process of writing a research paper (data or review). I have another set of slides (not as easy to link) where I teach them about the Evidence Pyramid from Evidence Based Medicine. Here's the punchline: I teach them what to look for, they build a Zotero library (which they can share with other editors), and so that is a contained, organized place to vet the list. Pushing that into Wiki in a draft page should be easy. They copy the list in Zotero, paste it into the visual editor, and it's a bibliography listed on the page. I did some searching to find other reviews on VMI, and pulled five PDFs into Zotero. Here's the list pasted in:
 * OK, let's suppose a student just did nothing more than put up a stubbed definition of VMI, using these sources, and I need to check it on New Page Patrol. Let's see how long it takes me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Intriguing! I see ways we can connect work flow here. I have been teaching students to use Zotero, and then also teaching them how to identify high quality sources. I have a slide deck that I use to teach the process of writing a research paper (data or review). I have another set of slides (not as easy to link) where I teach them about the Evidence Pyramid from Evidence Based Medicine. Here's the punchline: I teach them what to look for, they build a Zotero library (which they can share with other editors), and so that is a contained, organized place to vet the list. Pushing that into Wiki in a draft page should be easy. They copy the list in Zotero, paste it into the visual editor, and it's a bibliography listed on the page. I did some searching to find other reviews on VMI, and pulled five PDFs into Zotero. Here's the list pasted in:
 * OK, let's suppose a student just did nothing more than put up a stubbed definition of VMI, using these sources, and I need to check it on New Page Patrol. Let's see how long it takes me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let's suppose a student just did nothing more than put up a stubbed definition of VMI, using these sources, and I need to check it on New Page Patrol. Let's see how long it takes me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No PMID given, so I go look for it in PubMed ... because we have to remember most readers do not have journal access, and we should always link them to Pubmed. It is not Pubmed-indexed, which makes me wonder ... why not? Not a top journal?  What gives? Why are they using this source?  Since it is 2001, I stop searching right there. Yes, someone can send me a copy, but how useful will a 20-year-old non-Pubmed-indexed source be? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No PMID given, so I go look for it in PubMed ... because we have to remember most readers do not have journal access, and we should always link them to Pubmed. It is not Pubmed-indexed, which makes me wonder ... why not? Not a top journal?  What gives? Why are they using this source?  Since it is 2001, I stop searching right there. Yes, someone can send me a copy, but how useful will a 20-year-old non-Pubmed-indexed source be? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is old, but it's a review, and it's Pubmed-indexed. Because it is so old, we might feel uncomfortable using it for most content, but it should work for a definition.  But there is no PMID given, which means I have to go look for it, and if working on an article with an established citation style, I have to convert it to a Diberri-style citation, by using the template filler.  (If I am doing this for a student, I'm not losing patience yet, but I'm wishing they would supply PMIDs :)  I complete the citation to Diberri format, fill in type= Review so everyone will know I've checked it, and add a quote parameter for what it says about the definition of VMI.  Oops!  Can't find a definition.  So not really a useful article at all, because of age. And I just lost five or ten minutes :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is old, but it's a review, and it's Pubmed-indexed. Because it is so old, we might feel uncomfortable using it for most content, but it should work for a definition.  But there is no PMID given, which means I have to go look for it, and if working on an article with an established citation style, I have to convert it to a Diberri-style citation, by using the template filler.  (If I am doing this for a student, I'm not losing patience yet, but I'm wishing they would supply PMIDs :)  I complete the citation to Diberri format, fill in type= Review so everyone will know I've checked it, and add a quote parameter for what it says about the definition of VMI.  Oops!  Can't find a definition.  So not really a useful article at all, because of age. And I just lost five or ten minutes :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A 2012 meta-analysis! Might be useful.  But no PMID, so I have to go searching in PubMed.  So I generate a Diberri citation, and go see if it has a definition that I can add to the quote parameter.  We don't need accessdates on journal articles; they don't change, they aren't websites.  We should only fill in the URL field if it gives access to free full text, different from a PMC. And those author formats ... ugh.  So ... look at this clean citation, with a quote, and a usable definition (although I think we can do better). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A 2012 meta-analysis! Might be useful.  But no PMID, so I have to go searching in PubMed.  So I generate a Diberri citation, and go see if it has a definition that I can add to the quote parameter.  We don't need accessdates on journal articles; they don't change, they aren't websites.  We should only fill in the URL field if it gives access to free full text, different from a PMC. And those author formats ... ugh.  So ... look at this clean citation, with a quote, and a usable definition (although I think we can do better). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No PMID, title says it's a review, no date, so I don't really know what I'm looking at, so off to PubMed we go! I find that it's a 2000 review, which will not be very useful, but good enough for a definition, so I generate a citation, fill in type= Review, and go looking for a definition of VMI. None found.  Dud :)
 * No PMID, title says it's a review, no date, so I don't really know what I'm looking at, so off to PubMed we go! I find that it's a 2000 review, which will not be very useful, but good enough for a definition, so I generate a citation, fill in type= Review, and go looking for a definition of VMI. None found.  Dud :)


 * From those four, we got one sorta good definition that we can maybe use to start the article. UTC 20:47 to 21:17, half an hour, and I've got to stop for a minute to meet a repairman ... I'll be back. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Curious to see how it looks when I click Publish Changes!Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above was just a raw paste into the old text editor. Not horrendous! This is the same thing with a bit of attention to the formatting:
 * The above was just a raw paste into the old text editor. Not horrendous! This is the same thing with a bit of attention to the formatting:

Better, though more cleanup would be needed to get the references onto a page, but that may be enough for triage. The McCrimmon and the Dawson didn't get much of their data captured by Zotero (it's using CrossRef and trying to match DOIs, I think). Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've run out of steam ... will review more of this tonight, and type more tomorrow. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

At VMI, we are at this stage mostly creating a definitional stub. If we were in a position of finding no recent, high-quality secondary review, it would not be dreadful to use a primary source only to cite an uncontroversial definition. I don't think we have that situation. What is worse is citing primary studies to make other kinds of claims-- we have to take more care, for example, with claims about treatment and how effective methods are. Klazomania provides an interesting example. At the time I cleaned this up after a class edited it, there were almost no sources. I have not checked for new sources or updated the article in years (a cleanup of that nature is exhausting, and I tend to just unwatch), but it was necessary to carefully cite a case report, because there was nothing else. I'm looking at a similar problem at habit cough, which I am working on in sandbox, but I despair, as the topic is fraught, with new consensus guidelines being controversial, and I will have to resort to using an editorial from one of the Consensus panel members. We should be fine at VMI. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we are sure notability is met, we can temporarily park other proposed sources here for examination and formatting (to be discussed later :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we are sure notability is met, we can temporarily park other proposed sources here for examination and formatting (to be discussed later :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Now we have four basic definitions (two secondary reviews, and two primary sources-- not desirable, but may be the best we can do) at User_talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI that we can use to put up a stub. That is all we are trying to do at this point. If a student can get this far, and just put up a definition of VMI, having verified notability and made sure there is not already an article, and link it in to the places needed, they will have done a service. But they go too far, not commensurate with their abilities. They start with the idea that they will write an entire article, often without having gone through the steps to identify secondary sources, determine notability, and make sure the article doesn't already exist under another name. So, they work for a whole term, and established editors work for several hours (or much more) to clean up after them. Now we'll move on to the next step, at User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI. (Why that? Because we have not yet done the searches on all the terms to make sure the article doesn't already exist in some form.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Source summary
So, if all students would start this way, then check in with prof, so much agida could be avoided. The next thing for you (student Eric) to do is to a) pick a citation style (I suggest for this article, you use my Diberri format list above, because you can later work out on your own articles what your citation style will be), and copy our four sources to a section called Further reading in your draft. Once they are parked there, the instructor can review, tell student you have good MEDRS-compliant sources, you can start writing.  If not, send the student back to square one.  And, by parking the refs there now, when we are ready to start writing, you only have to give each ref a name and move it out of Further reading into sources.  Go :)  After you've done that, you'll go to Naming, pick a name, and start your subject line 'Name is ...   so that by the time you show this to your professor, he can look at your sources, look at your article title, determine that you've got good sources and have met notability ... and you're off! I'll stop here for now ... so much more to teach you still ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * SECONDARY
 * PRIMARY
 * TO DO
 * PRIMARY
 * TO DO
 * TO DO
 * TO DO

Avoiding "orphanage"
Just before we create our stub (that we have convinced ourselves is notable), we will go through and create redlinks (WP:RED) to all the places we will be linking it. Why that order? Because the New Page Patrollers will be most happy to see we haven't created an orphan, and part of creating the stub is making sure it's not already out there, so why not search only once and add the red links at the same time? Do the work once. So we have to search on three terms, that we will be red-linking.
 * 1) On the left-hand side of the page is the Search Wikipedia button.
 * 2) Type in the term (visuomotor integration, then visual-motor integration, then visual motor integration), and click SEARCH rather than GO ...
 * Visuomotor integration
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?cirrusUserTesting=glent_m0&title=Special%3ASearch&search=visuomotor+integration&fulltext=Search&ns0=1
 * We don't need to link all those ... some of them are only journal article titles ... high profile at:

I think that's good enough for that one. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert Wurtz (where we note that they call it by this term -- remember, we are still trying to decide what to name the article)
 * Flame_retardant where we discover that visuomotor is linked to a redirect at Visuo-motor which points to motor coordination ... so we also have to fix that redirect ... more on finding redirects later
 * John-Ross Rizzo where we can't link his lab to this article, because his lab is a separate thing, so we may need to do some re-phrasing
 * Visual-motor integration
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?cirrusUserTesting=glent_m0&sort=relevance&search=visual-motor+integration&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

Good enough for those, we just want to eliminate orphanage, not fix the entire broken internet. Except while we were doing that, we learned that Wikipedia's search engine found both visual-motor and visual motor with that search, so we don't need to do all three. Are there other articles where you would expect to find mention of VMI, that didn't turn up? If so, we can add a See also. (only AFTER we create the article ... one can add a WP:RED in the article, but not as a see also). So our next step is to decide on a name. Moving to User talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine motor skill
 * Halteres, can't link in a section heading, don't know if flies relate to humans, so we can add a further hat template instead
 * Tourette syndrome (sumbuddy already red-linked it to this term ... if we use this term, we're done, but if we use another, we create a redirect, which will get this one)

Naming


We have three choices: The third choice leads us to an unfortunate digression (and one of my pet peeves): WP:ENDASHes on Wikipedia. See obsessive–compulsive disorder. Because the title correctly uses an endash instead of a hyphen, every time you type it, you have to insert an endash, which is not on your keyboard. So, if we can find a reason to NOT use the dashed form, that will be golden :) Whichever two we don't use will need to have redirects created to the new article.WP:NCMED says: That's not always true, since sometimes the most commonly used name in recent, high-quality sources is a lay term: in Tourette syndrome, both the DSM (Tourette's disorder) and the ICD terms (combined motor and vocal baloney) are rejected for different reasons, but I digress.  In this case, we don't have a recognized medical name, so we have to figure out and justify our choice between the three possibilities.MOS:AT gives us little guidance, except here we have another important digression to common student editing mistakes.  Please have a look at the entire thing, because this petty, but one of the sure-fire tipoffs to poor student editing-- they rarely know how to create correct article names OR section headings. And, section headings follow the same guidelines (but additionally should not repeat the article name or other section headings in subsequent section headings, see MOS:HEAD). No A, An, The, and only the first letter is capitalized, otherwise sentence case, unless a proper noun. See here; Reliability and Validity, Clinical Applications, External Links. These are such small things, but so easily explained to students to avoid others having to do the clean up. MOS:NAME applies to bios, not here. So, it's up to us to figure out, per MEDMOS, what the most commonly used name is in recent high-quality sources. We can check PUBMED, google books, and google scholar. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Visuomotor integration
 * 2) Visual motor integration
 * 3) Visual–motor integration
 * PUBMED
 * Visuomotor integration returns 242 results overall, and 131 if we restrict it to ten years, and we won't bother to check for reviews, because we've already determined there are almost none.
 * Visual motor integration combines with and without the hyphen, so we can't be sure what we're looking at without manual examination, but returns 592 results, and 297 if restricting to 10 years

Because of the combined, this isn't very useful ... we will examine other things.
 * Google scholar
 * Since 2016, 1,250 for visuomotor
 * but 3,480 for visual motor, which again combines the two, so it's hard to sort.

What about highest quality? Of the sources we are going to use to start, at User_talk:Eyoungstrom/VMI, we have a complete mixture, no preference. Now, I'd be thrilled to avoid the ENDASH, but we have no clear result. Our two newest sources are primary sources, and they are split. Our two secondary sources are also split. You get to choose; pick one and we'll move on! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

MEDMOS


MEDORDER are SUGGESTIONS (guideline) only-- the suggestions don't work for all topics. Suggested headings are given for "Diseases or disorders or syndromes" and "Signs or symptoms" and "Medical tests" (among others). VMI is more closely aligned with Signs or symptoms-- although it could also align with Syndromes. We need to pick and choose section headings but this gives some ideas that Clinical applications won't be used here, and History is rarely useful first. It may be useful first for research publications, but Wikipedia readers want to get quickly to the information they most care about, which is usually Signs and Symptoms, Diagnosis and Management, and only the very committed reader cares about history. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation style and formatting
Hematologist/oncologist User:Diberri developed a tool over a decade ago that was the standard in medical citation style for years, and most of Wikipedia's Health and medicine FAs use that style. By plugging a Pubmed identifier (PMID) into Diberri, you get a complete citation. The vancouver author format is used. There are several common adjustments: Why it matters? When you're in edit mode, would you rather work/edit type around this (ungodly mess :):
 * 1) When there are more than five authors, the list is often truncated to three et al.
 * 2) In Featured articles, the way page ranges are stated has to be consistent.  So, if Diberri returns 222—236, but the article uses 222–36, you have to adjust page numbers.
 * 3) Sentence case is an issue in titles at FAs.  Different sources have different styles, but we have to maintain consistency within Featured articles.  That often means reducing titles to sentence case.
 * 4) And we always must reduce MOS:ALLCAPS.

which renders:

or this:

which renders: The Diberri format not only has a cleaner look, it's less gobbledy-gook to edit around. Be sure to check, when editing an FA, what format it uses for citations, and stay consistent. By the way, since I was just editing that article, notice the laysummary trick to incorporate a laypress article without citing them:

Citation style discussion
Eric, this has long been a disconnect between medical and psych articles. And since content is often transported between articles, a consistent style is good. Many medical editors use Diberri; most psych editors use a variety of tools. If you're going to edit the autism suite, you'll end up using Diberri, because we have to respect the established style in an FA, and Eubulides and I transported that style across the suite. I only use Diberri, and have no knowledge of any other citation building tool. It is up to you to decide if you want to establish a citation style, tool or format for your other articles, but now you know all you need to know about Diberri, and the citation style used in most medical FAs. I admit ... when one has curated a Featured article for over a decade, it is irritating to feel like a secretary when someone plops in perfectly good and well-sourced text, but I have to go in and clean up the citation formatting !! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing featured articles
Featured articles must maintain a consistent citation style. What that means is that if you add content to an FA with a different citation style than the one established you might get tarred and feathered :) Most of these things don't matter in editing other articles, but since they are good editing practice, and since all articles could potentially become Featured articles, why not do it right from the beginning?
 * CITEVAR


 * "Ownership"


 * WIAFA

Updates Comment
Hi, @ SandyGeorgia! I have been busy exploring the citation options and space, but wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this. My wife brought home three technical manuals from the clinic that review the construct and the literature measuring it with a couple different tests. I am re-reading a couple chapters from them and I'll draft the stub in the next 72 hours. The manuals are an interesting thing to talk about in terms of sourcing. On the one hand, they are reviews, and done by experts, and not "primary" research (at least, not the chapters I would be citing). OTOH, they are obviously partisan (the three manuals are all for commercially distributed tests. I am curious whether citing competitors could get back to NPOV, by providing counterbalance? There also is primary research in the later chapters or appendices, where they gather validity data with different clinical populations. That clearly is not getting cited or put on Wikipedia. :-) For me, reading these is helpful to get a gestalt of the construct, and get the associations fresh in my memory (and feel a bit less like an impostor drafting a page). I am wondering about whether there might be value in having a Wikiversity sister page that reviews more of the research with the different clinical assessments. It's not a huge literature, so not a big task to add, but also no reason to add to the To Do list if not helpful. More soon, and all the best in the meantime! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heading out to do errands, so very quickly only ... we don’t consider Mayo Clinic even a MEDRS source, a nd doubt we should use those manuals ... we want (and have) secondary reviews. I have to catch up on multiple FAC reviews, and then will catch up with you.  Always something! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)