Talk:Dyslexia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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 2¢ | Maintained) 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: teamwork(im proud to be a part of Moxy's team)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to look over the changes....not much change to the  content as it was all done pretty well ..as 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 dated...as 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)
replies: text: you and i are seeing different articles.  but i will try to review this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  '''GA nomination preparation (before review)''' 

message: — Assignment last updated by Roach Jefferson (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing

message: — Assignment last updated by A.staleto (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2

message: 161.142.154.118 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024