Talk:Dyslexia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dyslexia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Dyslexia 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | 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 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Dyslexia.
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() | This article was submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external peer review in 30 October 2018 (reviewer reports). It was published as
Osmin Anis; et al. (15 October 2019). "Dyslexia" (PDF). WikiJournal of Medicine. 6 (1): 5. doi:10.15347/WJM/2019.005. ISSN 2002-4436. Wikidata Q73053061.{{cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)![]() |
![]() | The contents of the Dysorthographia page were merged into Dyslexia. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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
| |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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) 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)
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)
@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.
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)
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 b.it 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] a.it 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 c.it contains no original research. 3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and b.it 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)
|
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)
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change main photo of article from a picture inaccurately depicting dyslexia as a writing disorder and shows the myth dyslexics flip letters when they write to a photo focused on reading possibly a young student being tutored or a class learning to read to highlight dyslexia is a reading discord and that dyslexics do not have any visual issues. Sark Asadourian (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: It would be helpful to propose a specific image; vague requests are unlikely to be considered or actioned. Left guide (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- GA-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- High-importance WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
- GA-Class neurology articles
- Mid-importance neurology articles
- Neurology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- GA-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- GA-Class Linguistics articles
- Mid-importance Linguistics articles
- GA-Class applied linguistics articles
- Applied Linguistics Task Force articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- GA-Class Writing articles
- Low-importance Writing articles
- WikiProject Writing articles
- GA-Class Autism articles
- Low-importance Autism articles
- WikiProject Autism articles