From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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
Current status: Good article

Penrose triangle.svg
WikiProject Dyslexia

General information

Main project page • talk
   To-do list
   Project Template

Project pages

Proposed reorganization • talk
Live articles
Reorganization 2010
Proposed reorganisation 2009
Developmental dyslexia reorganisation
Alexia series reorganization
Alexia outline and resources
Country Support Information
Alternative Remedial Programs


Dyslexia navigation • talk
Top navigation bar
Globalization guideline
Sources of information
Useless information
Etc etc
edit · changes

GA nomination preparation (before review)[edit]

GA process/review

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

@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)

thank you for your knowledgeable assistance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
@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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
teamwork(im proud to be a part of Moxy's team)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
you and i are seeing different articles. but i will try to review this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
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)

What is this?[edit]

Impaired-extraction-of-speech-rhythm-from-temporal-modulation-patterns-in-speech-in-Developmental Dyslexia-Audio4

This file is linked in the article without a description, and when I go to the information page it links to – seemingly completely unrelated. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

its from Wikimedia commons, I was going to get rid of it, it should play but does not (thanks for deleting it, there are four such files on dyslexia at Wikimedia commons, I must have mistakenly picked this one)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dyslexia/GA1. 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[edit]

I compared the content in the sections of this article to what is expected to be included per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)

  • 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)

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)


i started going through this and got as far as para 2.1. i read over each ref and saw whether it supported the content or not. i found junk refs that added no value, refs where there was no pmid which made it harder than necessary to check if the source was primary or secondary, and after i added pmid, i found many, many primary sources. i tagged them. when book chapters were cited, the chapter was not cited, just the book. I will keep going, but have to leave now. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good,,,I will take the time to fix the problems that have come up (change content if needed) over the next few days......this is what i have been working on already. I will also fix all the external page numbers as this has been a problem in the past for some GA reviewers (not sure what the current reviewer thinks of them?). Thank you for the copying editing along the way Jytdog.. -- Moxy (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I am going to step back from this page for a bit ....not sure that removing academic books like medical encyclopaedias and replacing them with a web sites that have no details will help our readers in the long run. -- Moxy (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with academic books as long as page numbers are provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Moxy I assume you are talking about this dif I made? In my view that dif is a great improvement.Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope ..that edit was fine..great rewrite..though the same info can be found in a real publication. Lead now all sourced to web pages with very little info over academic books that go into details. I am concerned many of the new sources were just found today when doing a Google search over actually knowing what publications contain this info with the case studies etc.. All that said I do understand that the last there editors here have great experience at this ...thus why I will step back. I just think more info in sources is better,--Moxy (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Lead uses simple language. Refs in the lead are too the NIH, a 2012 Lancet review and a number of textbooks. Thus not "all sourced to web pages"
I do not find NIH material by a random google search but actually navigate directly there as it is a good enough source and most importantly uses simple language and provides a general overview. Plus one can closely paraphrase as they are PD.
I am happy with more complicated sources being used in the body but they content needs to be significantly simplified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


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 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Another good review [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

edits today[edit]

Ozzie10aaaa 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)

 Done All ok now new source 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)
(edit conflict) - :::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 Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology_and_medicine 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)

 Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was actually reading up on this point today..can I get others to read over John Stein; Zoï Kapoula (2012). Visual Aspects of Dyslexia. Oxford University Press. pp. 158–161. ISBN 978-0-19-163634-9....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  Done, 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility or at Wikipedia: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[edit]

At the request of @Ozzie10aaaa: 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)

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.


Hello, I suffer from dyslexia myself and I would like to say that when I write it is super slow and time wasting. Many more of my friends who have dyslexia agrree that it is like the nerve from your brain to your hand takes the longest route possible. I would appreciate it if someone who has acsess to edit this page adds this infomation and information from people with dyslexia, Many Thanks, Lexi ItsLexiM (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting, will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)