Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleDyslexia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
March 22, 2015Good article nomineeListed
November 15, 2015Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 6, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that dyslexia is the most common learning disability, affecting about 3% to 7% of people?
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / Biology GA‑class
WikiProject iconDyslexia has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do.
 GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

GA nomination preparation (before review)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA nom/review

below you will find the response I received at the help desk Dyslexia[edit]

hi, some time ago I took over an article (dyslexia) which was a mess, copyvio, etc. Recently Ive done about 100 edits on it and have slashed 12,000 bytes, two other contributors came in and helped as well. At this point where can I go to have someone take a look at the overall quality of the article and give me his/her opinion.i would eventually like to take it for GA nomination thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Ozzie! I skimmed the whole article for a few minutes and I have to say: great work, to you all! Okay so since you think it's ready for a GA nomination, head over to the good article page, make sure the page is up to par, and then head over to the GA nominations page and nominate it. Be aware though, nominations do not happen overnight, it could take weeks to get reviewed. Just be patient and good luck. -A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 15:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC) thank you, that's very kind of you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

before taking any steps I would like to get opinions from chris (and basie) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick review

In my view the sources are mostly too old - with many from the 1990s, and a 9 year old source in German... needs lots of work improving sources and updating content based on them. ...Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it could be that some dates are more reflective of sources that were "quality" when published, so we may add newer ones via review articles as long as the quality is not altered. Having said that many times one finds that when one is looking at a specific sub topic, there just might not be a available source that is recent. Also

one has to deal with the nature of a source, which might influence whether you pick that latest or something more established. On a side note, two other individuals had gone over the article and didn't mention the sources so im not sure if that opinion is generally viewed.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will go over the article and add sources like text books. I do agree that old studies dont help readers much..but they are good sources....I will add real books with detail that all can see... like this -- Moxy (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ozzie please read WP:MEDDATE. That is a well established part of MEDRS and an important one too. If other reviewers didn't notice how old the sources are, that is the result of carelessness. I will work on updating the sources with you. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
we here welcome any opportunity from all editors to improve this article of course im certain we are all well versed on "MEDDATE" but again there are many things to weight ,IMO just because something was written today, doesn't mean it is better than an earlier source if the quality is better, in any event, as we go forward we will base each source on its merits as well as all factors. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: I skimmed through the article text and went through the source to check for compliance with the MOS-related GA criteria (I did a few unrelated MOS compliance checks as well). There were a few minor issues that I saw/fixed, but overall I think the article text/writing quality is decent enough, so it should pass the "well written" GA criteria; although, it may need a few more minor text revisions in a certain sections. Except for the references that I formatted, I haven't looked at the citations, so I don't know yet if any of them need to be replaced with a current medical review to meet the WP:MEDRS standard. In most cases, it's generally pretty simple to find a current MEDRS-quality review to replace older citations.
Sometime tomorrow when I have more time, I'll read through the article more thoroughly and check the citations for any issues, and then make any changes I can to help you get through the GA review process. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for your knowledgeable assistance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sepppi, it should not just be a matter of swapping sources out! New sources ~should~ lead to new content. The point is that the article reflects current sure knowledge - not the state of the field 15 years ago.... it may be that nothing has been learned, but that would be disappointing, wouldn't it? I've been gathering reviews. There are a lot. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jytdog: I completely agree with you; if I go through the trouble of looking for a replacement source for a statement without a MEDRS-quality review, I almost always end up making some form of text revision if only to ensure that the statement is directly supported (for WP:V compliance) by the replacement review. I usually do add any notable/useful content from replacement reviews if I notice any when I skim through them; when I don't have a lot of time, I usually just put quotes of noteworthy material from the review into the citation quote parameter for adding later. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconding previous comments: it's generally well-written, but if this wants to be a GA, it needs major overhaul of sourcing. Partly to get newer MEDRS-quality ones; but partly because (and this is a problem going way back for Wikipedia's whole coverage of dyslexia-related topics) it's become a linkfarm of statements linked to primary sources, mostly with no way for the reader to verify that any statement, or the overall selection of topics, represents a secondary consensus. Some sources don't even appear to have been checked; earlier today I found that the first sentence in the article (about alexia being a synonym for dyslexia) cited a primary paper that didn't even mention the terms "alexia" and "dyslexia". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can tell we are all ready on top of anything that was left without appropriate sourcing, as you might have noticed user:Moxy already went over some points you have raised. Tomorrow I plan to go over the entire article again to finish anything that that might be in question we plan to present a GA quality article and we know the work needed. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might check the Dyslexia#History section, which has a sentence fragment - "A description of phonological and surface types of developmental dyslexia (dysphonetic and dyseidetic, respectively) to classical subtypes of alexia which are classified according to the rate of errors in reading non-words" - that I can't quite see how to fix because it doesn't readily relate to the following citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so therefore lets remember-[1]

1.Well-written: a.the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

2.Verifiable with no original research:[3] contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] 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;[5] and contains no original research.

3.Broad in its coverage: addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. 5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7] 6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8] a.images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and b.images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

these are the points we must adhere to--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) fwiw, ozzie, gordon took time out of his life to read carefully and give you feedback. "thanks" would be a more appropriate response. and if you presented that list b/c it says nothing about being up-to-date... well hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the purpose of the list is to understand the goals that must be satisfied, to therefore meet the criteria for a GA review, in this case the 6 main points, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned above I have added and changed some sources...will do more if need be. I have made a new section "Further reading" of the books I did not use as sources ,,but are good source of info. -- Moxy (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
teamwork(im proud to be a part of Moxy's team)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • note - i apologize for not helping with the work so far. I have watched the updating of the sources. It was good to see them updated, but what i saw in almost every instance, was that the citation was changed, and the content wasn't changed at all. (example of 2 ref updates here) to be frank i have less faith in the article now than i did before. i believe it was verified but outdated before; now i don't believe the content will verify. i don't think you should put this up for GA. until somebody reads it over carefully for VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I like that lack of good faith being put forth..but o well... Lets look at the example you gave here) If one would have taken the time to look one would have seen that it was not properly dated in the first place...a portion of the edit only corrected the date of publication and added some marital that was removed because it was not sourced..thus a source was added. I suggest all look at the updated source...see if there are any real problems before commenting. In most cases sources were simply added not replaced.- Moxy (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is not a question of any kind of faith. i observed behavior, which was changing many references and changing the content little. (note, in the bottom half of that dif, content was moved from one side of the ref to the other, but not changed. just moved) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to look over the changes....not much change to the content as it was all done pretty well in sourced with 21st century refs and with uptodate info before hand. What did take place was the additions of sources (not often replaced) that go into details about the topics at hand. Medical and journal news articles fail to discuss important issues in detail ..thus modern medical books were added to backup the already sourced info that was not out per the new source added. High-quality reliable sources generally talk about more then an individual case report or study, thus sources with more info was added. The best thing we can do for our readers is to allow then access to information.,,,be it with one or two or three refs. -- Moxy (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you and i are seeing different articles. but i will try to review this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jytdog I don't see why we cant see eye to eye, and therefore have a GA article, since our intention is meeting the criteria set forth for such a review, we of course welcome your opinion equally as anyone elses and thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 31 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcnemo, Ginger567 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Roach Jefferson (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 7 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: JayKatJay.

— Assignment last updated by A.staleto (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]