Talk:Directed attention fatigue

message: some references from a quick search:
* http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/480
* http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9293/Jul19_93/15.htm
* http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/greengood.html
* http://itdl.org/Journal/Apr_04/article07.htm
* http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/fatigue/HealthProfessional/page3/print
66.93.0.185 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: some

message: This article was properly tagged for resemblance to  in November 2009. Investigation, however, suggests that the infringement is reversed. The oldest archive of that source dates to December 2007: . This article began substantially difference in 2005, , and gradually evolved to this form in November 2007. The most significant textual change in that time occurred in April 2006, but note, too, the addition of text in February 2007 which is also present in that external source. The combined evidence of archival date and natural evolution suggests the copyright of the material belongs to Wikipedia's contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverse infringement

message: *I have fixed titles of the article: See my reasons here: Titles should not be bolded and should not be redundant with article title. Additionally the first section was unneeded: the lead does not need its own section. I also added the section "references" (They were there but with no section)
*Use of titles and credentials are discouraged: there is no need to say "Drs X", better simply X, or even eliminate the name if it is not well known.
*There should not be a space after each section and before the beginning of the next one.
*More internal links would be a good idea.
I will come back as I have time. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast comments for further improvement

message: This article is definitely an intriguing one due to the fact that this is something that afflicts most people on a day-to-day basis.  As has been mentioned on many other pages, citation should only occur once. Also, at times, the English seemed a bit confusing and filled with grammatical and spelling errors. When these are fixed, the article will definitely read much better. I would also recommend explaining the roles that each anatomical portion of the brain play with respect to DAF. Such information would much better explain the pathophysiology of this phenomenon, and would give more insight into greater areas of research. With respect to hyperlinking your article with other Wikipedia articles, I definitely think there needs to be a lot more of that. In the research portion of the article, as mentioned above, there needs to be no real mention of the researchers involved (with the exception of the couple you hyperlinked). This only serves to take up space that can be devoted to explaining the research in greater detail. Citations are perfectly adequate to give credit to authors. The explanation of stress vs. mental fatigue is a great one, and definitely adds to the quality of the article. It would also be interesting to see the role that DAF plays in diseases and syndromes (I'm thinking ADD, schizophrenia, etc.), and whether it is a symptom of any. This might yield to greater discoveries in terms of treatment of the phenomenon if it becomes very serious. Also, try to condense the opening into one paragraph. Hopefully, these suggestions help. Looks like this will be an excellent article. AlexGoldy (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comments 

message: Hi Bridget, Young and Debra, nice job with this topic, it's in much better shape than before. A few issues that remain:
*The "Onset" section should have a reference or two for the information you present there.
*In the "Treatment" section where you say "inhibitory attention chemicals are replenished", you should go into a bit more technical detail than that. It's not exactly clear what those chemicals are. NeuroJoe (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project

message: I have compared this version of the page, , from before the start of the project, with this version, , after.
Scale from 1 to 5
1 = most negative
5 = most positive
1. Is the prose clear and concise? 4: Mostly yes, but sometimes appears digressive. More on this below. However, I think there could be a better title than "Research" for the last section.
2. Does the article comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, and list incorporation? 3: Problems: Too many words capitalized unnecessarily (directed attention fatigue and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, for example should only be capitalized when the first word is at the start of a sentence, and mental fatigue should not be capitalized in the section header); there should not be spaces before the inline citations.
3. Is the article properly and adequately referenced? 4: The "Onset" section in unreferenced. Otherwise, good sources have been added.
4. Are in-line citations provided in accordance with Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? 5
5. Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? 5
6. Does the article stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? 1: This is what I was referring to when I mentioned digression above. Wikipedia has guidelines about not being an essay and not being an instruction manual. Consequently we discourage writing in the form of telling the reader what to do. This article is full of statements like "It is important to note" and the "Treatment" section is written in terms of what the reader should do, instead of how health care providers usually treat it.
7. Does the article represent viewpoints fairly and without bias? 4: It appears to do so mostly, although the issue noted immediately above makes the page sound as though it could push a biased view.
8. Is the article illustrated by images that are relevant and are tagged with their proper status? 1: There are no illustrations.
Overall, I think the authors have added a good amount of research to the article, but could have been more careful about how they wrote it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: There is a "Citation needed" tag on the instances in the article of claiming DAF is a temporary state. While the sources in the article don't seem to explicitly say it is temporary and not permanent, it is so implied and obvious I want to remove these s. Do I need a source to say that it returns to normal on its own after some time in order to show this? As of now we have sources saying it can be restored with nature exposure for example, but nothing outright saying it resolves on its own. Kimen8 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation needed" for temporary state?